Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Housing Finance

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received to date about the proposals contained in the White Paper, The Reform of Housing Finance in Scotland, Command Paper No. 4727; and what reply he has sent.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I have received and acknowledged representations from the Scottish Landowners Federation and from Coatbridge Town Council.

Mr. Hamilton: That is very gratifying. I am sure that the landowners are very interested in this matter.
Will the Secretary of State tell us how the speech made by the Under-Secretary, when winding up the debate on this White Paper last Thursday in which he said that no saving in public expenditure was involved, squares with paragraph 35 of the White Paper "New Policies for Public Spending" which specifically states:
By the middle of the decade this is expected to lead to a saving in public expenditure of £100–£200 million …"?
That is clearly a contradiction. Will the right hon. Gentleman clear it up for the House and for the country?

Mr. Campbell: I have done this before, but I am glad to do it again for the hon. Gentleman. The amount now being spent on subsidies is not to be reduced. In fact, for Scotland it is likely to increase

in the coming years. But if the previous system had continued, the amount would have escalated into a very much greater sum by the middle 1970s. That is where the saving comes in.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now withdraw his proposals on the reform of Housing Finance in Scotland, Command Paper No. 4727, in view of the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 19th July, 1971 concerning a voluntary prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: No, Sir.

Dr. Mabon: Does the Secretary of State realise that we did not get an answer to our argument that this was inflationary within the so-called prices and incomes policy which the Government are seeking to adopt? Will he comment on that and confirm that, on the day after the White Paper to which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) referred in the last Question, he said, according to the Glasgow Herald, that he was cutting that figure, which he talked about as escalating, by £10 million to £20 million in the fiscal year 1973–74?

Mr. Campbell: I should need to see the article in the Glasgow Herald, which I have not seen and which no one has produced to me, to answer the hon. Gentleman's last point and to explain on what it was based. Regarding the present situation and the proposals in the White Paper, the annual average increase in council rents is to be limited to 50p a week. That means that the rents can increase only by reasonable steps each year. That increase must be related also to the equivalent limit which the Labour Government set on the average increase in rents of 37½p at the height of a pay freeze.

Mr. Strang: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that these proposals, in conjunction with the other means tests, will create a situation which many working men in Scotland, although they get a 25 per cent. increase in wages, will be worse off in consequence of all the means-tested benefits which they will lose?

Mr. Campbell: I do not accept that. The means test, if the hon. Gentleman


wishes to refer to it as such, is not new. It is a test under rent rebate schemes which was strongly advocated by the Labour Government in at least two circulars sent to all local authorities in Scotland.

Home Ownership

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken to increase the proportion of home ownership in Scotland; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: We have abolished betterment levy and the Land Commission and we have halved selective employment tax. We have widened the scope of the option mortgage scheme and reached agreement with the building societies that they should extend their lending arrangements. We have removed the limit on local authority mortgage lending and have told authorities that they are free to sell council houses.

Mr. Costain: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer. Does he appreciate that the percentage of owner-occupied houses in Scotland is 25 per cent. compared with 50 per cent. in England, 53 per cent. in Wales and 55 per cent. in Czechoslovakia? Does he appreciate that the action which he has taken will do much to stimulate house ownership and help to relieve unemployment? Has his attention been drawn to the Report produced by the then Minister of Public Building and Works in 1963 on the Production of Building Components in Shipyards? Does that Report help the shipyard order position?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not responsible for housing in Czechoslovakia.

Mr. Campbell: I am well aware of the contribution which the private sector, in addition to the public sector, can make to housing in Scotland. I am also aware of the survey on housing in Scotland carried out by Professor Cullingworth in which he indicated that the proportion of home ownership in Scotland was lower than anywhere else west of the Soviet Union.

Mr. Small: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving public authorities the

power to build houses for home ownership and for sale?

Mr. Campbell: We have already given local authorities guidance on and approval for the sale of council houses in certain circumstances. That is what we are concentrating on now.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the local authorities which have now made written submissions to him with regard to the boundary changes envisaged in the recent White Paper on the Reform of Local Government in Scotland, Command Paper No. 4583.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: With permission, I will circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that it will be an extensive list? As this matter is of vital importance, in view of forthcoming legislation, will he provide access to the documents by placing them either in the Library of the House or in Dover House?

Mr. Campbell: The authorities have been invited to put forward their views. Many of them are concerned with local problems of minor adjustments. I do not think that much would be gained by circulating their views. I should certainly need to ask their permission before they were published. The work is continuing and the information that has been sent in has been most helpful to the Government in reaching conclusions on these problems.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for agreeing to publish this information. Does he realise that it has taken five Questions and a dozen letters to get this out of him?

Mr. Campbell: What I have said is that I shall publish the list of authorities which have sent in their representations. I have not said that I shall publish all the representations.

Following is the information:


County Councils


Aberdeen
Berwick


Angus
Clackmannan


Argyll
Dumfries


Banff
Dunbarton






County Councils


East Lothian
Perth


Fife
Renfrew


Inverness
Ross & Cromarty


Kincardine
Roxburgh


Kirkcudbright
Selkirk


Midlothian
Stirling


Moray
Sutherland


Moray & Nairn
West Lothian


Nairn
Wigtown


Peebles
Zetland


Town Councils


Aberdeen
Kilrenny, Anstruther Easter and Anstruther Wester


Aberlour



Airdrie



Alloa
Kilsyth


Arbroath
Kilminning


Ardrossan
Kingussie


Armadale
Kinross


Ayr
Kirkcaldy


Bearsden
Kirkintilloch


Biggar
Kirriemuir


Bishopbriggs
Ladybank


Bonnyrigg & Lasswade
Lanark



Langholm


Burntisland
Leven


Campbeltown
Linlithgow


Clydebank
Loanhead


Coatbridge
Lochgelly


Coldstream
Lochgilphead


Cove and Kilcreggan
Lochmaben


Cowdenbeath
Markinch


Cumbernauld
Maybole


Cumnock and Holmhead
Milngavie



Moffat


Cupar
Monifieth


Dalkeith
Motherwell and Wishaw


Dornoch



Dumbarton
Musselburgh


Dundee
Nairn


Dunfermline
Newburgh


Dunoon
New Galloway


Duns
Newport-on-Tay


East Kilbride
North Berwick


Edinburgh
Paisley


Elie and Earlsferry
Penicuik


Ellon
Perth


Eyemouth
Peterhead


Falkirk
Pitlochry


Falkland
Pittenweem


Forfar
Port Glasgow


Fortrose
Portsoy


Galashiels
Prestwick


Girvan
Queensferry


Gourock
Rothesay


Grangemouth
St. Andrews


Grantown-on-Spey
St. Monance


Greenock
Saltcoats


Haddington
Sanquhar


Hamilton
Selkirk


Hawick
Stevenston


Helensburgh
Stirling


Inverkeithing
Stornoway


Inverness
Stranraer


Inverurie
Tain


Irvine
Tayport


Jedburgh
Troon


Johnstone
Whitburn


Kelso
Wick


Kilmarnock
Wigtown





District Councils


Aberdeen
Skye


Deeside
Lower Deeside


Huntly
First District Lanark


Turriff
Second District Lanark


Monifieth



Ardnamurchan
Third District Lanark


Cowal
Fourth District Lanark


Kintyre



Lorn, North
Sixth District Lanark


Lorn, South
Seventh District Lanark


Mid Argyll



Ayr No. 1
Ninth District Lanark


Cumnock
Currie


Dalmellington
Broughton


Maybole
Linton


West Kilbride
Perth


Buckie
First District Renfrew


Cullen
Avoch


East District Berwick
Fearn


West District Berwick
Fortrose


Arran
Invergordon


Alloa
South West Ross and Cromarty


Old Kilpatrick



Vale of Leven
Tain


North Berwick
Jedburgh


Cupar
Kelso


Dunfermline
Central No. 1 Stirling


Glenrothes
Central No. 2 Stirling


Lochgelly
Western No. 1 Stirling


St. Andrews
Western No. 3 Stirling


Wemyss
Tongue & Farr


Badenoch
Kirkliston & Winchburgh


Harris



Lochaber
Linlithgow

Highlands and Islands Development Board

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further consideration he has given to providing the Highlands and Islands Development Board with financial incentive differential to attract industry as was recommended by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in 1970.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Since the Select Committee reported there have been several discussions with the Board about the industrial incentives available in the Highlands and Islands. These have been increased during this period, and the present differential seems to me reasonable.

Mr. Johnston: Surely the hon. Gentleman will admit, as the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs established, that the differential is not enough to make any difference to an investment decision for a company in the Highlands? If the Government believe in the development


of the Highlands, especially at a time when unemployment is higher than for 20 years, the hon. Gentleman must act now to change the situation or the Highlands will again be the tail-end Charlie at the time of recession.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We believe in development in the Highlands. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not ignore the improvements that have been made in incentives since the Select Committee's Report. There have been improvements in building grants and in loans for advance factories. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is under discussion with the Board, and that we shall keep the position under review.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the economic collapse in West Central Scotland in particular and the measures taken to attract industry there, such as the creation of a special development area, make it all the more difficult for the Highlands and Islands Development Board to attract industry to the Highlands? Is he not aware, also, that the miserable measures which he has taken since the Select Committee reported are completely inadequate to attract new manufacturing industry to the Highlands?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is ungrateful for what has been done for the Highlands. I ask him to bear two points in mind. The special incentives given to other areas decrease the differential by a certain amount, but the hon. Gentleman must remember that the kind of industry which the Highlands attract is not necessarily the same as that attracted to the central area. Second, despite what is happening in central Scotland, and the help that is given there, the Highland area enjoys special advantages in loans and grant assistance.

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was approved by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in grants and loans in the first quarter of 1971; and how this figure compares with the corresponding periods in 1969 and 1970.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In the first quarter of 1971 the Board approved grants and loans amounting to £490,266. The figures for the same quarter in 1970 and 1969 are £372,194 and £194,000.

Mr. Gray: I thank my hon. Friend for those figures, which entirely contradict some of the suggestions by hon. Members opposite that the Board is sleeping. He will know, of course, that a great amount of these loans and grants have gone to help with the increase in tourist accommodation, but, unfortunately, this is still much below what is required in the Highlands. Would he consult his right hon. Friend so that necessary legislation may be introduced to provide grants to people buying large old houses and improving them? At present, these grants are not available because they are not building additional rooms. This is very important in the Highlands.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his supplementary question. The figures that I have announced are an increase of over £100,000 on the past year. I certainly take note of what he said in the second part of his question.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the real need in the Highlands is for an increase in the number of jobs in manufacturing industries, and that this is where the new Board seems to be less successful than its predecessor?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Equally, what the hon. Member must realise is that, while one wants to see more jobs in Scotland—more jobs in relation to the money spent—it is particularly encouraging, in the face of the legacy of economic stagnation that his party left behind when they left office, that in the first quarter of this year the Board found so many projects which were worth approving.

Dr. Miller: Is this sum outwith any sums which might be spent by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in purchasing land for public ownership in Scotland, or is it included in this amount?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The answer is quite simple. These are grants and loans approved for projects in the Highlands or for individuals coming to help with those projects. I do not think that that supplementary has anything at all to do with this Question.

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with the Highlands and Islands Development Board regarding the


effect of recent tax changes on the prosperity of Highland counties.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: None, but I am satisfied that the effects will be beneficial.

Mr. MacArthur: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my estimate is that the selective employment tax has cost the Highland counties over £10 million? Surely the Board welcomes the progressive removal of this burden, which has taken out £2 million more than the Board's splendid work has put in.

Mr. Campbell: I believe that my hon. Friend has already received information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his first point. The halving of S.E.T. and the announcement that it will be abolished in two years has been greeted with great relief by the Highlands, an area which probably suffered from it more than any other part of Britain.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to rebut the nonsensical figures of his hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur)? Is he unaware that more than twice the amount which has been alleged to have been collected in S.E.T. was spent on one project in Invergorden alone and that, since the abolition of investment grants, the Highlands have seen no new major industry coming in at all? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to build on the foundations laid by the previous Government to build up manufacturing industry in the Moray Firth area?

Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman was listening to a reply just now, he will have heard that the increase in the amount of grant and loan given in the first quarter of 1971 represented a considerable increase on the amounts which the Highlands and Islands Development Board had given out for new projects in the same period in the previous two years.

Athletics (All-Weather Running Tracks)

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice and encouragement he has given to local authorities for the provision of all-weather

running tracks for the training and coaching of young athletes, particularly in the Glasgow area.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): The provision of sports facilities is primarily a matter for local authorities. Advice is available to them from both the Scottish Office and the Scottish Council of Physical Recreation on individual proposals, for example on the most appropriate surfaces for running tracks. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I intend to encourage the provision of sports and recreational facilities in Scotland.

Mr. Buchanan: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the Front Bench and hope that he will have some happy years there—[Interruption.] I can promise him—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The idea that Scottish Question Time can be a happy time is a little unusual.

Mr. Buchanan: Apart from anything else, I am a realist, and I promise the hon. Gentleman that future Questions will not be as easy as this one today.
I appreciate that power to provide these facilities rests with local authorities, but to date they have not made very much progress in providing all-weather tracks. I should like the hon. Gentleman to move from encouraging to stimulating local authorities to provide these tracks.

Mr. Monro: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am somewhat apprehensive at hearing my own voice again.
The scheme for grants to local sports clubs ended on 10th June, 1971. It will be open to local sports clubs and to local authorities to submit applications for grants towards such schemes to the new Executive Sports Council when it comes into being on 1st April, 1972. It will be for the Council to prepare its new scheme of grants and to decide whether to grant aid any particular project.

Mr. Douglas: Would the hon. Gentleman care to inform the House of any developments about the possibility of


using Hampden Park as a sports centre for the whole of Scotland?

Mr. Monro: My hon. Friend has had discussions with Hampden Park, but at this stage I am not in a position to make any statement.

Rents

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the average rent of county councils in the landward areas and what the standard rent will be after the transitional period as contained in the White Paper, The Reform of Housing Finance in Scotland, Command Paper No. 4727;

(2) what is the estimated deficit on the Housing Revenue Account of county councils; and what average increase per house on rent per annum would be required to square the Housing Revenue Account.

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what the standard rent will be in the burghs of Buckhaven and Methil, and Kirkcaldy, after the transitional period, as stated in the White Paper, The Reform of Housing Finance in Scotland, Command Paper No. 4727.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The information about present rents and about deficits on housing revenue accounts is published in "Rents of Houses owned by Public Authorities in Scotland, 1970", Cmnd 4607, and "Rating Review January 1971". The level of rents required to balance housing revenue accounts will depend on the amounts of the new subsidies and increased costs, which will vary from authority to authority and cannot be forecast with any precision.

Mr. Eadie: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he has a responsibility to inform council tenants and local authorities in Scotland that if the terms of the White Paper become law it will mean that after the transitional period council tenants and other public bodies will have £156 added to their present average rents per year, and that that will be the standard rent?
Second, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his answer to the second part of the Question shows that if local authorities were to square their

housing revenue accounts the figure would be less of a rent increase than £156? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to back the trade union movement in its demand for increased wages to meet this colossal and scandalous proposition of increased rents?

Mr. Campbell: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's estimates. The rebate scheme will, for the first time, be a national scheme throughout the public sector and the private sector. It will help those who cannot afford the new rents. As I said earlier today, rents can rise only by a certain reasonable step each year. The previous Government doubled the average council house rent in Scotland in 5½ years. Ratepayers in Scotland will benefit—and many tenants are ratepayers, too—because at the moment they are paying 37 per cent. of the cost of council housing, with tenants paying 40 per cent.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituency is an area of high unemployment, with a present rate of 6·3 per cent., and that it is also a low-wage-earning area? It is quite easy to project what the standard rent will be in Kirkcaldy at the end of the transitional period, particularly in respect of the four-apartment house. I understand that the weekly payment will be more than £5.
Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to provide more generous rent rebates under this scheme or, better still, will he tear up this White Paper on Housing Finance and introduce an improved and more generous subsidy structure for providing houses in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has omitted to mention the housing expenditure subsidy and the Exchequer subsidy towards the rent rebate schemes. These schemes will apply to persons who are unemployed or who receive low incomes. This is the first time that there has been a scheme to cover all such people.

Mr. Brewis: Is it not the case that this scheme is designed for areas where there are high unemployment and low incomes, and that this scheme will be of benefit not only in council housing but also in private housing?

Mr. Campbell: It will certainly benefit the whole housing situation in Scotland to remove the incredible distortions which exist at present, when ratepayers are paying nearly as much as tenants for council housing. At the same time, it will enable us to move forward with slum clearance and many other things which we need to carry out.

Mr. Lawson: Is it not the case that these Questions relate to the standard rent which is aimed at balancing the housing revenue account? Will the right hon. Gentleman not be honest and tell us that in the constituency of Motherwell it would require a multiplication of the present rent by a factor of three in order to reach the standard rent?

Mr. Campbell: When the hon. Gentleman raised this matter in Committee he made a calculation and said that if the rent were trebled it would produce a standard rent of £6 in Motherwell. We did a quick check and discovered that he was wrong and that trebling the rent would produce a standard rent of £3 15s. That calculation was made quickly, but it showed that the hon. Gentleman was twice out in his own estimate.

Grant-aided Schools

Mr. John Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the amounts of grants being made to grant-aided schools in Scotland.

Mr. Monro: Subject to the condition that the total grant must not exceed the school's deficit, the basic grants set out in the Grant-Aided Secondary Schools (Scotland) Grant (Amendment) Regulations, 1971 may be increased in 1971–72 by the amounts shown in the table which, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I cannot yet say how much will actually be paid.

Mr. Smith: May I add my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on his promotion? I do not want to land him with a skeleton which his predecessor left behind in his cupboard, but does not he recall that we debated this matter on 13th July when questions were asked by hon. Members on this side of the House about the amount to be paid to grant-aided schools in Scotland? The information was not given, but it appeared on

20th July in the Press, to whom it was presumably given on 19th July. Is this not a disgraceful way of treating the House of Commons, to produce in the Press figures which have been requested but which have been withheld from the House? Will the hon. Gentleman, who I know was not responsible for this since the bird who was responsible has flown, undertake not to treat Parliament in such a disgraceful way?

Mr. Monro: I cannot accept the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary. The purpose of the amending Regulations which we debated that night was not to prescribe an additional amount of grant but to enable the Secretary of State to pay increased grant to take account of rises in prices and costs. The actual amounts were not determined in advance and they will not be available until the schools' final accounts have been received and examined.

Mr. Buchan: May I also add my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on his promotion, although I cannot hope or expect him to be on the Government side of the House for very much longer?
Is he aware that this answer is not good enough? The subject was debated in the House, and the following week we were given the figures in the Press, but only today are we told that the information will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I accept that the hon. Gentleman is not responsible, but I hope that he will stiffen up some of his colleagues in the Scottish Office and not insult Parliament, as has happened on this occasion.

Mr. Monro: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I cannot accept it. The important point in the debate was that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) stated that relevant costs had increased by 20 per cent. and that the grant would take account of this.

Mr. MacArthur: May I also add my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend on his new cap? May I ask him to resist and reject every assault on variety and freedom of choice in education?

Mr. Monro: I thank my hon. Friend. He can rest assured that I shall be supporting the grant-aided schools.

Following is the table:


GRANT-AIDED SECONDARY SCHOOLS


MAXIMUM ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS OF GRANT WHICH MAY BE PAID IN THE SCHOOLS' FINANCIAL YEAR 1971–72


Name of School
Amount £


Albyn School for Girls
9,266


Robert Gordon's College
20,974


St. Margaret's School
5,897


High School of Dundee
19,844


Merchant Company Schools:


Daniel Stewart's College
75,402


Mary Erskine School for Girls


George Watson's College


George Watson's Ladies' College


George Heriot's School
20,953


John Watson's School
6,147


Melville College
7,835


St. Mary's Cathedral Choir School
971


Craigholme School for Girls
9,459


Hutchesons' Boys' Grammar School
30,274


Hutchesons' Girls' Grammar School


Kelvinside Academy
8,800


Laurel Bank School
11,333


St. Aloysius' College
13,246


Westbourne School for Girls
9,063


Troon, Marr College
16,761


Dollar Academy
17,316


Maxwelltown, Benedictine Convent School
3,194


Dumfries, St. Joseph's College
6,176


Crieff, Morrison's Academy, Boys' School
17,266


Crieff, Morrison's Academy, Girls' School


Girls' School Company Limited:


Glasgow, The Park School
26,226


Helensburgh, St. Bride's School


Kilmacolm, St. Columba's School

Upper Clyde Shipyards

Mr. Buchan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the men employed in the Upper Clyde shipyards.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have had a number of such discussions, formal and informal, the most recent being a long meeting in Glasgow yesterday.

Mr. Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that meeting people in order to sell a brutal policy after it has been decided hardly qualifies for the word "discussions". Has the right hon. Gentleman learned from his meetings yesterday that every section of Scottish opinion is shocked and appalled at the butchery decision which was made, and in saying that I include the Churches, the town council, the trade unions, industry and commerce alike? Will the right hon. Gentleman persuade his right hon.

Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who seems to be making the running here, to rescind his policy and to come up with a sensible policy for the development of the yards along with the workers who are demonstrating for the right to work?

Mr. Campbell: That is not a reflection of the discussions in which I took part yesterday, when there were representatives of all those concerned with this very difficult problem. We had an opportunity of discussing and explaining the advice profferred by the four advisers on shipbuilding in the Upper Clyde, which was issued only last Thursday afternoon. Having debated that in Parliament, my right hon. Friend and I had the opportunity of very long discussions with the different sections concerned, including shop stewards. Some of the shop stewards took the line which the hon. Gentleman described, but others who took part in our discussions were considering and discussing the proposals which had been put forward by the four advisers, who included three leading Scots whose main concern must be the welfare of Scotland and Clydeside.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept or reject any responsibility for maintaining existing employment in U.C.S. until a viable alternative exists?

Mr. Campbell: As I have already said in this House, my objective is to maintain the maximum of employment while reconstructing and rearranging the shipbuilding industry on the Upper Clyde so that it will become a successful industry which can handle orders and compete with the rest of the world.

Mrs. Hart: Will the right hon. Gentleman abandon the defensive complacency of the Government Front Bench and tell us whether he has been at all disturbed in his view of the Tightness of Cabinet decisions by what he has heard and seen in the last week? Is he not now convinced, as Secretary of State for Scotland, that there is a case for asking the Cabinet to reconsider its decision?

Mr. Campbell: Any defensive complacency which I have observed has come from right hon. Members opposite, who were responsible for setting up U.C.S.


and who left us with this problem which exploded in the form of a liquidation. We have been discussing proposals that were put forward by the advisory group and which had to be put forward quickly because in Scotland the period of provisional liquidation can last for only a certain time. The Government were guaranteeing wages during that period, and it is our intention, having explained these matters, to do what the Government think should be done, but it requires co-operation by all concerned.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

Lanarkshire (Public Works Programme)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the £33 million public works programme has been asked for by Lanarkshire County Council; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have not yet received the Council's full proposals, but under the primary school improvement programme for 1971–72 and 1972–73, about half of which is to be provided from the £33 million, proposals by the Council totalling £1,350,000 have already been approved.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he gets these proposals from the local authority concerned, included among some of the things they want are at least three primary schools in my constituency? Will the right hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to this matter? We want him to give us, first, the schools which are so much required and, secondly, jobs in Lanarkshire, bearing in mind that 8·3 per cent. of the insurable population are unemployed at the moment.

Mr. Campbell: As I said in my original reply, we have already extended a considerable amount of this new programme to primary school improvement in Lanarkshire. I am well aware of the problems of Lanarkshire; I received a deputation from the Lanarkshire

Development Council only about a week ago.

General Practitioners (Remuneration)

Dr. Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average amount paid to principals in general medical practice in Scotland in respect of ancillary assistance provided by general practitioners in each year since such payments began; and what he expects it to be in 1971.

Mr. Monro: As the Answer contains a number of figures I shall with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Dr. Miller: In adding my congratulations to the hon. Member, may I hope that his post will interfere less with his rugby than the Prime Minister's post interferes with his sailing? In view of the fact that this money is being paid to general practitioners in addition to an already substantial remuneration, amounting in England and Wales—there is no reason to think that it is less in Scotland—to £7,800, will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to do everything possible to encourage in Scotland the provision of health centres and group practice, so that the doctors who are receiving this very large sum of money can provide patients with better attention and better facilities than they provide at present?

Mr. Monro: I am glad that the hon. Member thinks that sailing and rugby are manly sports. His supplementary question covers his second Question, No. 27. I am particularly glad that a rising amount of money is going to ancillary staff—both in the number of practices making claims and in the total payments. This is an encouraging trend and should provide better facilities for patients.

Following is the information:

Direct payments to general medical practitioners for ancillary staff from 1st October, 1966 are set out in the table below. Details are available only of the practices and not of the principals making claims. I expect that there will be a further increase in the amount paid in 1971–72. Apart from these direct payments the gross remuneration of general medical practitioners contains an allowance for practice expenses which includes


an element for payments for ancillary staff.

(a) Year ended 31st March
(b) Total payments £
(c) Number of practices making claims
(d) Average payment per practice making claim £


1967
65,820
702
94


1968
346,890
789
440


1969
452,876
826
548


1970
575,201
841
684


1971
702,240
859
818

Dr. Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average remuneration paid to principals in general medical practice in Scotland in each of the years 1960 to 1970; and what he expects it to be in 1971.

Mr. Monro: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Dr. Miller: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is it not a fact that the sum to emerge will be very high? I indicated earlier that it is likely to be in the region of £7,800. As consultations are taking place with the medical profession for a further increase, will he ask his right hon. Friend to confer with the Secretary of State for the Social Services with a view to the medical profession being urged to help the para-medical branches—I have in mind the medical laboratory technicans—without whom the whole of the medical profession would collapse? Will the hon. Gentleman see that pressure is brought to bear on the medical profession to help the lower-paid people who work in this important branch of medicine?

Mr. Monro: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman speaks from personal experience. I will look into the matter and give it further consideration.

Following is the information:

The average gross remuneration paid to principals in general medical practice in Scotland in each of the financial years from 1960–1961 to 1970–1971 is set out in the table below. The remuneration of general practitioners for 1971–72 is currently under consideration.

Year ended
Average Gross Remuneration of Principal General Medical Practitioners in Scotland £


31st March, 1961
3,123


31st March, 1962
3,179


31st March, 1963
3,234


31st March, 1964
3,603


31st March, 1965
3,515


31st March, 1966
3,803


31st March, 1967
3,979


31st March, 1968
4,769


31st March, 1969
4,978


31st March, 1970
5,372


31st March, 1971
6,604

Sports Council for Scotland

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement about the proposed Scottish Sports Council; and whether this Council will be empowered to make grants to local sports clubs.

Mr. Monro: The Sports Council for Scotland will have a wide discretion in making grants from the funds available to it and it will be open to the Council to assist local voluntary sports clubs where it so decides.

Mr. Sproat: May I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him and his predecessor on achieving a different system of disbursement of grants for Scotland than obtains in England? What is the earliest date by which applications for these grants will be entertained? Will it be before April, 1972?

Mr. Monro: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. As he knows, the present system was wound up in June and the new system will begin in April next year. I hope to announce the members of the new Sports Council later in the autumn. I hope that soon after the body is set up and has decided its policies, it will be able to receive applications.

Mr. Dalyell: What consultations did take place on this new scheme with the governing bodies of sport in Scotland?

Mr. Monro: The Government have of course been in close touch with the Scottish Council for Physical Recreation, and in the light of all the considerations, we believe that this is the best result for Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: Then the answer is that you have not consulted them.

Primary School Teachers (Pay)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many primary school teachers in Glasgow have lost their salary addition as a result of their schools being no longer designated schools of teacher shortage.

Mr. Monro: I understand from Glasgow Education Authority that the number will be about 560.

Mr. Brewis: Is it the case that no proper notice was given to the teachers affected and that there was no proper consultation with the teachers' organisations concerned? Would my hon. Friend ensure that Glasgow Corporation takes into account the views of the teaching profession?

Mr. Monro: This is a matter for the Corporation—it is free to consult should it wish to do so—but I will pass on my hon. Friend's remarks to the authority.

Sugar Beet

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland from information available to him from international sources, how many countries in Europe grow sugar beet in a more northerly latitude than the Scottish Border.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Beet is grown in Denmark and Sweden with yields per acre very much higher than in Scotland. Some beet is also grown in Finland.

Sir J. Gilmour: Would my hon. Friend agree that experience has shown that farmers in Scotland can, over a considerable period of years, grow beet with yields between 17 and 20 tons per acre and that there is no agricultural reason why the beet sugar industry should not be encouraged and retained in Scotland?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Equally, my hon. Friend must realise that the actual yield in Scotland—although certain farmers have achieved high yields—is 12·6 tons per acre. For this reason, international comparisons are not necessarily valid.

European Economic Community

Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what

advice he has received from Scottish local chambers of commerce on their attitude towards entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Aberdeen and Dundee Chambers of Commerce have both written to my right hon. Friend. The Aberdeen Chamber reported the results of a preliminary survey showing a high proportion of individual industrial firms in the North-East in favour of entry. Reservations were expressed regarding the need for safeguards for inshore fishing, about which Dundee also expressed concern.

Lt.-Col. Mitchell: Is it not a fact that of 170 manufacturing members circulated with the pro forma, only 35 replied? Does my hon. Friend agree that a 20 per cent. reply represents a very small proportion of the total number involved?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Equally, my hon. Friend must remember that these were preliminary results which the Chamber of Commerce thought it worthwhile to publish. If my hon. Friend looks at the survey he will see that those involved in the marketing of agricultural produce and agricultural machinery were particularly in favour of entry.

Fishing Rights (Hunter Report)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on his study of the Hunter Report on Fishing Rights.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend expects to complete this summer his consideration of the Report. Thereafter, his conclusions and proposals will be published in a White Paper.

Mr. Dalyell: Hopeless, is it not, Sir?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is the first ray of hope so far from the benches opposite. It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has been pushed into silence by this announcement.

Edinburgh Haymarket Station

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet given his permission for the demolition of Edinburgh Haymarket Station frontage, scheduled as being of architectural and historic interest.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: An application for consent to demolish the building would fall to be considered in the first instance by Edinburgh Corporation, as the local planning authority.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Did my right hon. Friend see the rather ominous reports in the Edinburgh newspapers last week about proposals to erect blocks of 20 or more storeys, which would be totally inappropriate in this area, which I agree needs development? Will he watch this matter with great care to see that the City is not destroyed?

Mr. Campbell: I am aware of reports that have appeared in the Press, and I assure my hon. Friend that I will watch this matter very closely.

Local Government Finance (Green Paper)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has deferred publication of the Green Paper on Local Government Finance in Scotland until now.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Green Paper was published on 28th July following the Government's review of this subject and in accordance with the forecasts given in previous Parliamentary replies.

Dr. Mabon: After this long delay the right hon. Gentleman has finally produced a Green Paper which is far less comprehensive than any complaints he made when in opposition. Will he make up for the delay by ensuring that the House has an opportunity to debate the Green Paper before the end of the Session? Will he see that we have an opportunity to debate a glaring omission from the Green Paper—namely, the omission of any comment about the loss of industrial rating due to extensive closures? I am referring in particular to the way in which Clydebank, Dumbarton and other Scottish towns are being sadly affected by the loss of rating, not just for one year and at once but for several years. Do the Government intend to pay transitional grants to help to relieve this burden on these areas?

Mr. Campbell: We can discuss this matter, but when a debate will take place in Parliament is for my right

hon. Friend the Leader of the House to decide. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have a lot of business to transact before the end of the Session. I will, however, make sure that my right hon. Friend is informed of his request. I take note of the last part of his supplementary question.

Manpower Use (Government Fiscal Policies)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate his Economic and Statistical Advisory Section has made of the effect of the Government's fiscal policies on the use of manpower in Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: As a result of the advice I receive, I am confident that the fiscal policies being pursued by the Government will be beneficial for the Scottish economy and the use of manpower in Scotland.

Mr. Douglas: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Government policies will produce in the coming winter a level of unemployment in Scotland involving at least 160,000 people, and that although the efforts of the Economic and Statistical Advisory Section are resulting in our having the best analysed economy in Western Europe, the Government's policies are resulting in our having the worst economy?

Mr. Campbell: I am certainly getting very good service from the new Advisory Section in the Scottish Office. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have been having to cope in the last year with a situation which we found on arrival in office.

Mr. Douglas: With double the unemployment?

Mr. Campbell: The advice I am receiving is valuable to us in dealing with this very worrying situation of high unemployment.

Mr. Buchan: If the advice the light hon. Gentleman is receiving is the advice that we are seeing expressed in the results of Government action, it is time he ignored it and got better advice. Is he aware that the present level of unemployment in Scotland represents a loss of 33 million working days to Scottish industry? Does he appreciate that the biggest waste


of manpower in Scotland today is for 8,000 shipyard workers on the Clyde who want to work to be told that they may not work? Will he do something to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr. Campbell: I dealt with that point in answer to earlier Questions. The advice I receive relates to what should be done in the future. The hon. Gentleman knows that it takes time for measures which are announced, passed through this House and put into effect to become effective in the country. We are up against the problem of time, and on that point I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Lanarkshire (Official Visit)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next pay a visit to Lanarkshire and Bothwell in particular.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have plans to visit parts of Lanarkshire, but no immediate one for Bothwell.

Mr. Hamilton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, though I am disappointed that he is coming. Is he aware that his visit will give the people of Lanarkshire an opportunity to tell him what they think of him and his Government? They will let him know in no uncertain fashion that they are convinced that we are moving back to the hungry 'thirties. Will he at Cabinet level make a sincere and strong plea on behalf of the people of Scotland so that they will at least have some confidence in the Government's determination to do something for them?

Mr. Campbell: As I said when answering an earlier Question, I saw a deputation a few days ago from the Lanarkshire Development Council. The hon. Gentleman was invited to be present on that occasion, but for some reason he did not attend.

Later—

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to my supplementary relating to Question No. 26, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that he had met Lanarkshire Development Council. He led the House to believe that I was a member of that Council or a member of the delegation. I want to

make it absolutely clear that it was only a delegation from the Development Council that was met by the Secretary of State and that I was not an accredited delegate. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to make that clear to the House.

Mr. Campbell: I understood that the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Council, had been invited to the meeting with the Council. But in view of his explanation, I withdraw what I said.

Under-Age Drinking

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the figures for each of the first six months of this year of persons convicted of underage drinking; and if he will give comparative figures for the last three years.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The most recent six-month period for which figures are available is that ending in March, 1971. The number of persons under 18 convicted or found guilty of purchasing or consuming excisable liquor in that period was 436. The figures for comparable periods ending in March, 1968, March, 1969, and March, 1970, were 243, 314 and 346, respectively.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend will appreciate that these are very disturbing figures indeed. Will he have discussions with education authorities with a view to devising a system of discussion groups at which the moral dangers to which young people are exposing themselves may be fully explained?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: One is naturally concerned by such figures as I have announced. The Scottish Health Education Unit is engaged in a programme which we hope will influence public attitude to drink, which is, of course, the object of the exercise.

Industry (Attraction to Scotland)

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further plans he has for presenting the attractions of Scotland to industrialists in the Continent of Europe.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Detailed plans for this purpose are being got ready by the Committee under Lord Taylor of Gryffe


which has been established by arrangement with the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).
In view of the specially serious employment situation in Scotland and the pressing need for industrial investment, my right hon. Friend has authorised an increase in the grant already provided for carrying out the plans to £70,000 in 1971–72 and to £100,000 in each of the two succeeding years.

Mr. MacArthur: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is splendid news? I congratulate him and his right hon. Friend on this welcome new initiative.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to to my hon. Friend. This is a very considerable increase in the amount of money available and shows the great importance we attach to advertising outside Scotland the attractions which Scotland holds for industry and investment.

Mr. Maclennan: In order to put the matter into perspective, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Highlands and Islands Development Board itself planned to spend £98,000 on one project of promotion this autumn but that he and his Government have stopped the Board from doing that? Is he aware that the only traffic there will be between Scotland and Europe will be that of the unemployed in search of jobs elsewhere?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sorry that, as usual, the hon. Member is so carping when financial help is given to this very important task of advertising Scotland elsewhere. If the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friend's would only be constructive in letting people abroad, outside Scotland, know how much Scotland had to offer, instead of crying it down, then indeed we could look to a much happier future for Scotland.

Police Force (Vacancies)

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest figure of shortage of personnel in the Scottish Police Forces.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On 30th June last there were 669 vacancies in the regular police force in Scotland, 209 fewer than a year before.

Sir J. Gilmour: I welcome the increase, but will my hon. Friend take steps to publicise the shortfall in such a way as to bring the police force to full strength in the shortest possible time?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As my hon. Friend knows, we are reviewing police force establishments and hope that this will help, but my hon. Friend must appreciate that one of the greatest difficulties is in Glasgow where many of the vacancies occur. But we hope to help through a co-ordinated recruiting campaign this autumn.

West Freugh (Gunnery Range)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now order a public inquiry into the proposal to move the Shoeburyness Gun Range to West Freugh.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am awaiting a fully detailed application for the development.

Mr. Brewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the experimental firing I have received 537 communications, all of which have been against this range, and that over 5,000 people have signed petitions against it? Will he order a public inquiry as soon as he possibly can?

Mr. Campbell: I, too, have received views expressed locally, both in favour of and against this suggestion. The Ministry of Defence has been holding initial consultations with the county council in an attempt to ensure that the proposed development will as far as possible accord with the planning of the area, but as this is a planning matter, or may become one, it would not be right for me to comment on the merits at this stage.

Great Western Road Expressway (Glasgow)

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received concerning the Corporation of Glasgow's intentions to widen Great Western Road.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Since publishing my decision to confirm the Great Western Road Expressway Compulsory


Purchase Order, I have received 84 such representations.

Mr. Galbraith: Does not the very large number of representations my right hon. Friend has received—and I have received 73—indicate the great concern felt not only about the future of Great Western Road but about the constitutional propriety of Glasgow's trying to undermine my right hon. Friend's position following a public inquiry? Will he reject this attempt? Indeed, in the light of the decision of the Toronto Town Council to abandon a similar expressway, half built, will he re-examine this costly and damaging scheme which can never be a traffic success because of the bottleneck at Kelvingrove Park?

Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend will recall that I decided to agree with the recommendation of the reporter who looked into the question. I am now considering the revised proposals which have been submitted by the corporation but I still stick to the decisions which I have made.

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

National Giro

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he expects to make a statement on the future of the National Giro.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 30th June—[Vol. 820, c. 369.]

Mr. Huckfield: Is the Minister aware that he has given that same answer at every Question Time this year? Is he still reluctant to give any specific date for the report? Is he further aware that if Giro should close and we go into the Common Market, ours will be the only Post Office in Europe which does not operate a Giro? Furthermore, if the Giro is closed, this will be the only country which has started a Giro and then closed it.

Mr. Chataway: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this operation was set up on a basis which has subsequently incurred

great losses, and there are considerable problems involved. We have been looking at the issues very carefully, and I assure him that we shall take no longer over this matter than is necessary.

Mr. Waddington: How many prosecutions for alleged frauds on the Giro are now pending? Is there not now abundant evidence of the most appalling laxity in the operation of the whole system?

Mr. Chataway: I should need notice before being able to give the figure for which my hon. and learned Friend asks.

Mr. Richard: I must press the Minister a little on this matter, because he has been looking at it for a long time. Does he not realise that the longer the inquiry goes on, the more unviable will the set-up become? Is he not aware that among those people responsible for the running of the Giro there is considerable dissatisfaction about extent of this delay? Can he not hurry things up?

Mr. Chataway: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we shall take no longer over this question than is necessary to get the right answers but, as I say, there are some very complex factors involved.

European Economic Community

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, in view of the fact that the Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress, who represent a substantial part of the British electorate, have declared themselves against Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community in terms which are in his possession, whether he will seek to make available to them the same facilities for circulating their publicity material through Post Offices as that afforded for the Government's Common Market Fact-sheets.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: Is it not a scandal that the Minister and the Post Office should be aiding and abetting the Government in using the taxpayers' money for party political propaganda? As it has been revealed that whilst cutting services for school children the Government have been spending £25,000 in sending 800,000 Conservatives Party propaganda leaflets,


should not some action be taken by the right hon. Gentleman to stop this scandal of party propaganda going out at the taxpayers' expense? Will he do something about it?

Mr. Chafaway: These Factsheets were, as the House knows, published in accordance with past practice—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Factsheets were produced by the previous Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—in connection with the application in 1967. The Post Office has distributed these Factsheets as part of its agency function on behalf of the Government under Section 7 of the Post Office Act, 1969. But I do not believe that it would be appropriate, as this Question suggests, for the Post Office to start distributing literature on behalf of political parties, the C.B.I. or trade unions.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I hope, with your assistance, to raise the subject tomorrow on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Government Departments (Information)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list the official publications which, in the normal way, supply detailed information about Government Departments.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): The main official publications containing information about Government Departments are the Official Handbook on Britain 1971, the Annual Estimates, the British Imperial Calendar, and the quarterly publication entitled "Her Majesty's Ministers and Heads of Public Departments". In addition, several Departments publish annual reports.

Mr. Jenkins: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in none of these publications can one find any full information about the activities of the Central Policy Review Staff? Can he tell the House how many people in the C.P.R.S.—the "think tank" as it is called—are engaged in examining Concorde? Can he also tell us whether it is true that as a result of their examination they have come to the

conclusion that each Concorde will cost £21 million, and that a subsidy of £12 million per aircraft will be required.

Mr. Howell: That is pure speculation. The Central Policy Review Staff is an integral part of the Cabinet Office, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made quite clear the position that the Staff are giving advice to Ministers, and that that is their status.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that although the Prime Minister yesterday stated that the names and salaries of members of the Central Policy Review Staff are announced as and when the appointments are made, these announcements have not yet reached the Library of the House of Commons? Will he arrange for a complete list of the members of the Staff, and their salaries, to be deposited in the Library of the House?

Mr. Howell: I will certainly look into the matter.

Fulton Report

Mr. Neave: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress he is making towards implementing the recommendations of the Fulton Report in regard to the pay and career structure of the scientific classes in the Civil Service.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he expects to make a statement on the implementation of the recommendations of the Fulton Committee, in regard to the pay and career structure of the scientific classes of the Civil Service.

Mr. David Howell: Broad agreement has been reached between the Civil Service Department and the staff association concerned on a merger of the scientific classes up to the principal scientific officer level in accordance with a proposal in the Fulton Report. Pay scales for the new structure will be determined when the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal has reported on the pay of the scientific grades. An announcement will be made at the appropriate time.

Mr. Neave: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he not aware of the anger of Government scientists at their apparent down-grading as a result of the


Government's recent pay offers to other classes of civil servants? Has not the implementation of the Fulton Report been painfully slow?

Mr. Howell: I am aware of the concern which my hon. Friend mentions. The pay question is going to arbitration on 12th August and I do not think that it would be right to comment further on it. We are pressing ahead with the merger of the scientific classes and we are hoping that it will produce results.

Mr. Dalyell: At the appropriate time, would the Government consider the pay research unit's definition of comparability?

Mr. Howell: The system of fair comparisons which is operated in the pay research unit is well defined and I think that it is fair. The previous Government—and we do not quarrel with this—decided to put the scientific classes on pay research and the outcome is that with which hon. Members are familiar.

Mr. Dalyell: A jolly bad definition!

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the recommendations inherent in the Fulton Report was that there should be comparable promotion opportunities between various branches of the Civil Service and that what is incensing the scientific grades at the moment is the erosion of this principle? Will he remember that if the outcome of the arbitration is not satisfactory, we shall inevitably have to raise this matter after the Summer Recess?

Mr. Howell: I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says, but I do not think that this principle is being eroded. The Fulton proposition, that there should be equal career treatment and promotional structure, is being adhered to and supported by the Government in the implementation of the Fulton Report.

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Fulton recommendations for integration between the scientific classes and the administrative classes. Is it not a fact that, as a result of this differential pay award, integration will be made rather harder than it need be? As the hon. Gentleman has been pressing ahead so well, was this not rather a pity?

Mr. Howell: I do not think that the pay award will make a difference to the integration outlined by Fulton, or to equal career treatment and promotion prospects. It is a matter of fair comparisons, and they are based on the pay research system. It is only fair that non-industrial civil servants and the scientific classes should have the same treatment in pay matters, and that is what is happening now.

Dame Irene Ward: May we be assured that the Government will be honest and just to the scientific grades? As my hon. Friend knows, there has been a great deal of trouble. I should like to know which side the Government are on and whether they have done their duty and treated the scientific workers as they ought to be treated.

Mr. Howell: I did not fully hear my hon. Friend, but if she asked whether the Government were honest and just and doing their duty, the answer is "Yes".

ROLLS-ROYCE (RB211)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Bishop: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if he will make a statement on the future of the RB211 engine.

The Minister for Aerospace (Mr. Frederick Corfield): In my statement to the House on 10th May about the RB211, I reported that the United States Administration was seeking authority from the United States Congress to guarantee up to $250 millions of additional credits for Lockheed. The House will recall that, because of the heavy commitment which we were prepared to undertake on the engine, we wished to be satisfied that the aircraft project itself could be completed. The United States Congress has passed legislation which would permit the granting of United States Government guarantees on further loans to Lockheed. I am awaiting notification from the United States Administration that it is prepared to give the guarantees for the benefit of Lockheed in an amount of up to $250 millions, which amount the United States Administration considers sufficient to carry out the TriStar project. I am also awaiting from Lockheed confirmation of


orders for the aircraft from existing airline customers.
Provided the notification is received as expected from the United States Administration and from Lockheed, I am happy to say that the RB211 programme will proceed and that some 30,000 or more people at Rolls-Royce and in the company's supplier firms can now expect to continue work on this major engine programme. This has been a major consideration in our deliberations on the subject and I hope this will relieve some of the anxieties of those involved whether as employees, Rolls-Royce suppliers or trade creditors.

Mr. Eadie: But not U.C.S.

Mr. Corfield: Many of those who have in the last few months suffered serious anxiety have at the same time had to exert great efforts to keep alive the prospect of a solution. I wish to record my appreciation of those efforts.
Rolls-Royce will still have work to do in developing the engines for the TriStar. But we shall all be set on a course aimed at completing the project. We hope that the aircraft will enter into service with many world airlines who will recognise its merits and the House will, I am sure, wish the project every success.

Mr. Bishop: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after the cliff-hanging months the whole House will share his pleasure at such a statement being made and express its own appreciation of the co-operation of the United States Parliament in saving not only 30,000 British jobs but many hundreds of thousands of American jobs? Secondly, following the disclosures this morning, will he explain why it took the Government nine months before they reluctantly and timidly came forward to nationalise Rolls-Royce following the failure of private enterprise? Thirdly, will he explain what safeguards will be taken following the sacking of I.R.C., which acted as a watchdog, to ensure the continued viability of Rolls-Royce and other aero firms? Finally, may I congratulate him on choosing an Oral Question to make a statement today so that he might then be questioned?

Mr. Corfield: I thank the hon. Gentleman for some of his remarks. First,

the nationalisation, if that is the right word, was announced at the same time as the collapse of Rolls-Royce, not nine months after. I have made it clear on many occasions that, whatever other merits I.R.C. may have had, it was not the ideal organisation for the watchdog capacity which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So that the House may fully understand the background and responsibilities in this whole difficult matter, will my right hon. Friend now publish the 1969 I.R.C. report which, thanks to the diligence of the Sub-Committee, we now know to be in the files of my right hon. Friend, as the arguments against publication are no longer valid?

Mr. Corfield: I could not agree about those arguments being no longer valid. Publication would undermine the confidentiality of other I.R.C. reports. I have now seen the report myself and I am satisfied that there are still people and projects which could be damaged by its publication.

Mr. Benn: May I congratulate the Government most sincerely on the success of their negotiations which have been made possible by the guarantees voted on behalf of American taxpayers by Congress to sustain Lockheeds, which would otherwise not have been viable? This is the first occasion on which Congress has done such a thing.
May I also congratulate the Government on their decision to make further sums of public money available to the nationalised Rolls-Royce to allow it to complete the RB211, on which thousands of jobs in Derby and elsewhere depend? May I ask him to confirm that by concluding this agreement the Government are taking a tremendous risk with public money and that the outcome will depend on many factors outside their control, including the continued viability of Lockheeds?
We wish the Government success in their venture in support of a British industry and in hoping for major orders for this airbus from, among others, B.E.A.

Mr. Corfield: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. It is relevant to remember that a substantial contribution is being made in this connection


by the British taxpayer. We all accept that projects of this sort involve risk, particularly when one is dealing, as one unfortunately has to deal in this case, with a firm whose financial soundness is in question.

Mr. Rost: In welcoming this statement, which will come as a great relief to many thousands of my constituents in and around Derby, may I ask the Minister, now that some of the juicier bits appear to have leaked out from the I.R.C. confidential report about Rolls-Royce, urgently to consider publishing the Government's White Paper on the Rolls-Royce saga, because many of my constituents may well be under suspicion and it would be grossly unfair to them that the sort of rumours being spread about the responsibility for the collapse of Rolls-Royce should reflect unfairly on innocent parties?

Mr. Albu: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you consider the use of the words "leaked out" with regard to evidence given to a Select Committee of this House?

Mr. Speaker: I will certainly consider the matter and deliberate upon it, but not immediately. I would like to examine all of the circumstances.

Mr. Corfield: Perhaps I could first say to my hon. Friend that, if his definition of "juicier bits" roughly accords with mine, then I can find very little confirmation of such bits in the report. I am prepared to publish the summary which was officially made available to the previous Government and to myself. I would ask the House to bear in mind that there is a departmental inquiry taking place and I have made it clear in the House that I am perfectly prepared to make the whole report available to it.

Mr. Whitehead: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while my constituents in Derby warmly welcome the vote in Congress, they are only too well aware that the whole decision eventually hung upon the vote of a Kentucky senator? Will he now tell the House, since production on the RB211 is to go ahead, firstly, that there will be no further redundancies in the Derby engine division and, secondly, that some scheme will now be brought forward to allow worker shareholders to transfer at par to the new company

whose profitability and viability has been assured?

Mr. Corfield: I am sure we are all grateful to the Kentucky senator, but in both of our systems a majority of one is sufficient. As to the redundancies, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the figures I gave in my statement were taken from the figures supplied to me by Rolls-Royce of the people actually employed on this project. Obviously, one cannot give an absolute guarantee in projects of this sort that there may not be changes of mind on the part of customers or major snags. I am immensely optimistic, but I am in no position to give that guarantee.

Mr. Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend say how it is that the I.R.C. came to present a report to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) which said that millions of pounds would be needed by Rolls-Royce which in its view could not be a viable entity, and yet the right hon. Gentleman took no action to set this right? How can he appear in this House on this subject in a white sheet?

Mr. Corfield: With due respect, the report does not make those comments. I will publish the summary, in which it is quite clear, as it was certainly clear in the subsequent letter received from Sir Joseph Lockwood, that the I.R.C. did consider that its proposals would make Rolls-Royce viable.

Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman initiate a public inquiry into the sale of Rolls-Royce shares by individuals, not excluding members of the Board, who stood to gain by inside knowledge of the company's situation which was withheld from the Government of the day?

Mr. Corfield: I have already reminded the House that there is a departmental inquiry in progress.

Mr. Faulds: A public inquiry. This may come up again.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Member is always coming up again.
Would my right hon. Friend convey to all those who took part in the difficult negotiations the appreciation of the hon. Members on both sides—which we owe to him, too? Will he also convey to


them our gratification that the outcome of this affair puts the lie to stupid accusations which have come from certain people that this Government had sought to sabotage Rolls-Royce? Would he confirm that the full text of the I.R.C. document will be made available to the Board of Trade inquiry and that those who have commented on it will be invited to give evidence?

Mr. Corfield: To the first three questions of my hon. Friend I can say "Yes". To his latter comments I shall have to give some consideration.

Mr. Dalyell: Amid the euphoria, is this not the occasion to go along to the Treasury Solicitor and to those who advised the Attorney-General and discuss seriously the advice given to successive Governments in the case of Beagle and Rolls-Royce as to whether it was really necessary to put these firms into the hands of the Official Receiver at all? Is it true that Governments have to do this if they are not to incur the accumulated debts of firms in this position? This is a fairly serious question for the legislative committee of the Cabinet, and this is the time to ask it.

Mr. Corfield: This is a serious question on which successive Governments have taken the best legal advice available. The legal advice taken confirms, with no doubt at all, that the interpretation of the law was as I have put forward in the House.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that on this side of the House we are grateful for his firm reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) which put the matter into proper perspective? Will he also accept that we are glad that the vote in the United States Senate has gone the way it has—I thought it was a senator from Montana rather than Kentucky who had the decisive vote; but in any vote with a majority of one any of the 49 can be regarded as being decisive. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that as a result of their policies the Government are extremely lucky, through a vote of 49 to 48 in the United States Senate, not to be presented with a further massive increase of unemployment and the collapse of a major industrial project? Will they endeavour so to

conduct matters in future that they are not so dependent on chance votes outside this House?

Mr. Corfield: Of course we are grateful, but for the right hon. Gentleman, who has been a Chancellor of the Exchequer, to come forward and even imply that we should go ahead with an international project when there is grave doubt that the only reasonable market for this engine, namely this aircraft, will be built, astonishes me.

Later—

Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? I wished to put a question to the Minister for Aerospace, but I was not called. There is a Rolls-Royce factory in my constituency. I was the only Member with such a factory in his constituency who was not called—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and who, as far as I know, rose. I was not called on the last occasion that the Minister made a statement. As this matter is important to Northern Ireland, I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about how I can be called when a matter affecting hundreds and hundreds of workers comes before the House.

Mr. Speaker: I shall not take the hon. Member's remarks as a reflection on the Chair. However, many hon. Members' constituents are affected, either directly or indirectly, by the Rolls-Royce decision. The Chair has to be the guardian of the time of the House, and it is not possible to call every hon. Member whose constituents are affected, which I very much regret.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. John Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance in relation to Oral Question No. 58 on today's Order Paper. I put this Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland:
To asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will cause the Scottish Development Department to make a special study of unemployment problems in Lanarkshire.
The Secretary of State for Scotland transferred this Question to the Secretary of State for Employment, who has no departmental responsibility for the Scottish Development Department. I seek your guidance as to what an hon. Member


can do when a Minister wrongly transfers a Question to another Minister who has no responsibility for the subject referred to in the Question. May I also ask your guidance as to how I can establish, if the Secretary of State for Scotland has lost control of the Scottish Development Department, who now controls it?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice that he would raise this question. The matter of the transfer of Questions from one Department to another is not a matter for Chair. I am sure that what the hon. Member has said will have been noted.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) about his Question No. 58. I accept that any Minister can answer for any Department. What I cannot understand is how it is possible for another Minister to instruct a Department over which he has no control.

Mr. Speaker: Again, that may be a very mysterious process, but it is not a matter for the Chair. These matters must be investigated by others means—there are the usual channels, and so on. It is not for the Chair to rule on the matter of the transfer of Questions.

Mr. Buchan: Further to the point of order. I recognise that this is not a matter under your instruction, as it were, Mr. Speaker, but it is very serious. It would seem that responsibility for the Scottish Development Department has been placed with another Minister. I realise that you cannot issue instructions, Mr. Speaker, but I think that the Leader of the House, who is present, had better explain to us the significance of what has happened concerning Question No. 58, which asks
… the Secretary of State for Employment if he will cause the Scottish Development Department to make a special study of unemployment problems in Lanarkshire.
Would you tell us whether there has been a transfer of responsibility?

Mr. Speaker: I could not possibly allow the Leader of the House to do what the hon. Gentleman asks. I allowed hon. Members to raise these matters because I realise that they are concerned about them very much. I said on a

previous occasion that this problem of the transfer of questions has been constantly raised during the 26 years that I have been a Member of the House. It needs consideration, but I am sure that the Chair is not the proper body to consider it. It must be considered through the usual channels to ensure that reasonable methods are adopted for handling what has always been an awkward matter.

PROBATION SERVICE

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deteriorating situation in the probation service and the urgent need for an immediate and adequate pay settlement.
The rising crime rate and the increasing overcrowding in penal institutions has given, and is giving, cause for national concern, and the Government have recognised this in stating their plans to reorganise the penal system. Those plans are based on the expansion of the probation service from its present strength of 3,400 to 4,700 by 1975. Yet net gains in personnel have been declining over the past three years and it is doubtful whether the service can even meet its present commitments.
It is becoming increasingly difficult, due to the inadequate salaries and excessive work loads of probation officers, for the service to attract professionally-trained recruits, especially when it faces direct competition for trained personnel from the new local authority social work departments which are able to offer qualified personnel up to £400 more per annum than they could be offered by the probation service.
The matter is of extreme urgency, for unless an adequate pay settlement is offered in the near future—and I stress "in the near future"—an increasing number of probation officers may well leave the service, particularly the younger, university-trained officers, and this will severely dilute the standards of service and also make it impossible to implement the proposed advances in the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) asks for


leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deteriorating situation in the probation service and the urgent need for an immediate and adequate pay settlement.
I have considered this matter, of which the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me notice. I have also heard what he had to say. I think that the House will agree that he has made his point. However, under Standing Order No. 9, it is for the Chair to decide whether to submit his application to the House. I am afraid that I cannot submit it to the House.

RIVER BOATS (NOISE)

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege of which I have given you notice, but if you decide that there is a better way of dealing with it, then I shall gladly accept your advice.
I refer to what started as a nuisance but which has now become an impediment to the work of the House, particularly in its Committees, namely, the widespread use of loudspeakers by vessels going up and down the River Thames adjacent to the House. It has now

reached the extent to which witnesses giving evidence before Select Committees cannot be heard, and the shorthand writers, who have the difficult job of recording what is said, have great difficulty in taking it down. I do not think I need elaborate by giving examples because I am sure that all hon. Members, including yourself, Sir, are familiar with them. I should welcome any action which you can take, Mr. Speaker, to abate this nuisance to the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice that he would raise this matter. As the occupant for a time of a "tied cottage" facing the river and adjacent to portions of the Palace of Westminster which Members of Her Majesty's Commons use for their lawful purposes, I am very much aware of the nuisance. But I am very doubtful whether it is a matter of privilege. Therefore, I hope that it will not be persisted in as a matter of privilege.
The House, I am led to believe, is likely to rise tomorrow. By the time that it resumes its sittings the Thames boating season will, I think, be over. Perhaps the matter could be considered during the winter through a variety of channels. If the nuisance is persisted in next summer or earlier when the House is sitting, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will raise the matter again.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 42

DEFINITIONS RELATING TO BARGAINING STRUCTURE

Lords Amendment: No. 74, in page 32, line 32, leave out from "employers" to end of line 34 and insert:
in relation to whom collective bargaining, in respect of such matters as are not dealt with under more extensive bargaining arrangements, is, or could appropriately be, carried on by an organisation of workers or a joint negotiating panel, or partly by an organisation of workers and partly by a joint negotiating panel".

3.59 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It may be for the convenience of the House if with this Lords Amendment we also consider Lords Amendments:
No. 75, in page 33, line 2, at end insert:
except in respect of matters which are dealt with under more extensive bargaining arrangements";
No. 77, in page 33, line 8, leave out "and";
No. 78, in page 33, line 11, at end insert:
and
(f) "more extensive bargaining arrangements", in relation to any particular employees or descriptions of employees of an employer, or of two or more associated employers, means arrangements for collective bargaining in respect of matters common to those employees or descriptions of employees and to other employees or descriptions of employees, whether of the same employer or employers or of one or more different employers";
No. 92, in page 38, line 8, at end insert:
(8) Where the Commission determine, in making a report under this section, to recommend the recognition of an organisation of workers or joint negotiation panel as sole

bargaining agent for a bargaining unit, and it appears to the Commission that there are in existence more extensive bargaining arrangements which will be applicable to the employees comprised or to be comprised in that bargaining unit, the recommendation—

(a) may specify the more extensive bargaining arrangements in question, and
(b) may be made subject to the reservation that the organisation or panel, at any time when it is recognised as sole bargaining agent in pursuance of the recommendation, shall not have exclusive negotiating rights in respect of matters which are at that time being dealt with under the specified arrangements or which are then the subject of a collective agreement negotiated under those arrangements."

No. 93, in page 38, line 10, after "recommended" insert:
(with or without a reservation under subsection (8) of that section)";
No. 100, in page 39, line 17, at end insert:
(1A) If the recommendation of the Commission is subject to a reservation under section 46(8) of this Act, the order of the Industrial Court shall specify the more extensive bargaining arrangements, as specified in that recommendation, and shall be made subject to the like reservation.
I have had it suggested to me that it might also be convenient if the Opposition's Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 92, to leave out from 'question' to end of Amendment, were also to form part of the same debate. I hope that that will perhaps be for the convenience of the House.
The purpose of these Lords Amendments is to deal with an important question which we believe we had adequately covered in the original drafting of the Bill but which, we find subsequently, we have not. The point is this. The bargaining agent provisions of the Bill are limited to single employers, or employers associated only in the financial sense, but in practice over wide areas of industry it is exceptional for all the terms and conditions of a group of employees comprised in the bargaining unit to be negotiated by the agent for that unit. For example, in the typical engineering firm the basic rates of workers in that group, and other terms and conditions of employment, are customarily negotiated nationally between the Engineering Employers' Federation and the Confederation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Unions, but these nationally agreed terms are almost invariably supplemented at company level by further agreements which provide for payments


above the basic rates and also for many other things as well. Clearly, therefore, it seems to us that the bargaining agent provisions ought to be sufficiently flexible to deal with the situation where there may be bargaining at different levels in respect of a particular group of employees.
As I said at the outset, we had thought this was covered in the Bill as drafted, because the C.I.R. has power under Clause 46(7) to make its recommendations subject to any conditions which it thinks fit, and we thought that that covered the point I have just made. We thought that where a satisfactory national arrangement for negotiating terms and conditions of a group of employees was the subject of a recommendation the C.I.R. under that subsection could make it a condition, if it thought fit, that the recommended bargaining agent should accept that it had no negotiating rights in respect of those terms and conditions which were negotiated nationally.
This, as I say, we find is not the interpretation which we believe the courts would put on the Clause in the Bill as drafted originally, and we are now advised that we should make Amendments, and that is what we are doing, so that we can adequately cover this question of bargaining at different levels.
The problem arises primarily because of the tightness of the existing definition in Clause 42. Thus, although the Lords Amendments which we are now discussing are fairly extensive, they really do no more than make explicit what we thought hitherto was implicit in the provisions.
The Lords Amendments basically do two things. First of all, Amendments No. 74 and No. 75 make some necessary modifications to the definition of "bargaining unit" and "sole bargaining agent" in Clause 42.

Amendment No. 78 provides a new and I think comprehensive definition of "more extensive bargaining arrangements". Amendments of the existing definitions are necessary to make it clear that the phrase "bargaining unit" relates in the case of a particular group of employees to those terms and conditions of their employment which are not the subject of negotiations in more extensive bargaining arrangements such as national or company-wide negotiations,

and also to make it clear that the sole bargaining agent has no negotiating rights in respect of matters which are dealt with under the more extensive bargaining arrangements.

The second thing which the Amendments do is to enable the Commission on Industrial Relations to do what, as I have already said, we thought it had already the power to do under Clause 46(7). Amendment No. 92 inserts a new subsection into Clause 46 empowering the Commission on Industrial Relations to make its recommendations subject to reservation that the recommended bargaining agent shall not have exclusive negotiating rights in respect of matters which are dealt with under the more extensive bargaining arrangements.

I want to make it clear that this does not mean that everywhere the C.I.R. finds that there are these more extensive bargaining arrangements in existence it will be compelled to recommend that the sole bargaining agent would have to be subject to reservation. The new subsection will give the C.I.R. discretion—and I think it is right—to decide whether or not more extensive bargaining arrangements should be accorded priority over the negotiating rights of the recommended agent in an individual company or bargaining unit in the discussions.

That is important, and needs stressing. We are not wanting to tie the hands of the C.I.R. We are wanting to loosen its hands. It was the Bill as originally drafted which tied its hands, making it impossible for it to make such a reservation. We are making it possible for the Commission to make reservations, but not compelling it to do so.

I have to deal with two small consequential Amendments made necessary because of the changes. First of all, it is the purpose of Amendment No. 93 to make reference in Clause 47 to the possibility of this reservation by the C.I.R. under the new subsection to be inserted in Clause 46. Secondly, the new subsection (1A), which is contained in Amendment No. 100 and which is to be inserted into Clause 48 will require the Industrial Court, when it makes an order enforcing a C.I.R. recommendation, to specify in the order the more extensive bargaining arrangements.

These, then, are the purposes of these Amendments, the central purpose of


which is to give the C.I.R. discretionary power where it thinks it appropriate—but only where it is appropriate—to protest the primacy of negotiations at the higher level, and it seems to us sensible and in line with traditional British industrial relations practice.

I am surprised that the Opposition, in the Amendment they have put down to Lords Amendment No. 92, should apparently be seeking to reject it. Of course, it is true that the Donovan Commission recommended extension of company and plant bargaining, and I certainly accept that. All I would say to balance it is that national level bargaining is accepted on the side of both trade unions and managements, and where it is appropriate it has proved its value over a long period and, I believe, will retain its value even in modern conditions. Where it fails, and where, indeed, it has done seriously in some areas, is where a national body attempts to settle in a standardised national form terms and conditions which simply are not appropriate in the context of varying local conditions, and because they are not appropriate to local conditions they are not acceptable, and therefore, do not carry support and authority and acceptance.

Some national bargaining wrongly attempts to do too much—this is what the last few years have shown in some areas—and it is much better that it should be replaced by good, orderly, stable local bargaining at company and plant level. There is nothing in these Amendments which would deny or hold back the movement towards more effective company and plant bargaining.

Mr. Stanley Orine: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that national bargaining tends to set minimum standards? I recall that when I was in the engineering industry, in 1963 the basic rate for a skilled worker was only £10 12s. whereas the average earnings were over £25 a week. In other words, the national bargaining was out of all relation to what was actually happening.

Mr. Carr: I accept that point. I am not standing here as the great champion of national bargaining as it has often been practised. I welcomed at the time, and still welcome, the importance which

the Donovan Commission gave to the recognition of the growth of local bargaining which had taken place in its recommendation that this should be further extended. I am not going back on that view in any way. Nor do I believe that these Amendments would hold up such a process.
What I am saying is that because we have in the light of experience, some of it painful, discovered and become increasingly aware of some failings in our traditional system of national bargaining, it would be a mistake to throw the whole thing out of the window as though the whole concept of no value. There was and still is value in it—value from industry to industry and perhaps from time to time. All we are saying in these Amendments is that where the C.I.R. finds that the national bargaining for the setting of minima in pay or conditions is working well and is acceptable to both unions and management, it is sensible that it should be able to protect that national bargaining and limit local bargaining to the things which the national bargaining cannot effectively do. Equally of course where it looks into a case and finds that national bargaining is ineffective, it will be free to say so and to make clear that in future these matters ought to be dealt with at local level.
I believe that these Amendments provide the necessary flexibility which will encourage the development of local bargaining on a sound basis while protecting, where appropriate, and where it is wished for by both sides, the presence of national bargaining for certain issues where it is going on effectively. I am surprised that the Opposition should seek to reject this change—all the more so because their spokesmen in another place took a totally different view.
For example, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, in accepting these Amendments for the Opposition in another place, felt that they did bring something to the Clause which was formerly missing. He went on to say that he could not pretend that he had discovered this missing link for himself but felt that he should have done and wished that he had done. He added that, since it had now been discovered, he welcomed the Amendments and felt that they would improve the present arrangements. That was the view of the Opposition, strongly expressed


in another place—so much so that, without further debate, after Lord Champion's statement the Amendments were accepted without a Division. I hope now that the whole House of Commons, and the Opposition in particular, will consider these Amendments in the spirit in which I have explained them and will feel that they do improve an area of the Bill which I think is probably one of those which, over the years, can be of most value in developing more sensible bargaining structure in industry.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I remind the House, lest some doubt should creep in, that included in this long string of Lords Amendments is No. 92, to which the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and some of our hon. Friends have put down an Amendment, which is also for discussion now.

Mr. Harold Walker: Having read the proceedings in another place, I regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not open his remarks in the same frank way that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, presented these Amendments in another place. Lord Drumalbyn's speech was in contradistinction to the right hon. Gentleman's today. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that the Government are presenting the Amendments as a result of further careful and deliberate consideration. In fact, the origin of the Amendments lies with the representations made by the employers' associations—in particular, the Engineering Employers' Federation—which, right from the publication of the Consultative Document last year, have repeatedly expressed their concern, both in private and public, about the licence that would be given under his proposals to people at shop floor level in the pursuit of productivity bargains and so on which would apply in the event of industry-wide agreements.
One of our initial points of concern, which the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar with because we have referred to it so often, relates to the exercise by the C.I.R. of certain of these powers which, in this state, are derived via the N.I.R.C. We have repeatedly expressed our objections to the C.I.R. being yoked

to that court. I shall not labour the point again, because I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is in no doubt about the depth and strength of those objections or about our concern that the C.I.R. should be exercising any power at all while it continues to be so unrepresentative of industry as a whole.

Mr. Carr: Whose fault is that?

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman is referring to the deliberate decision of the T.U.C. to abstain from participation in this work. He has made it clear that he has declared war on the trade unions.

Mr. Carr: Nonsense!

Mr. Walker: The T.U.C. is quite entitled to say that, whereas in its mature years it was accepted as almost the fourth estate of the Realm—it had become an integral part of the State—in 1970 it found itself confronted by a hostile State. Can anyone complain if it decides that it will then contract out? It surprises me that the T.U.C. has limited its contracting out of State functions to this action.

Mr. Carr: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would say if, for example, the C.B.I. or individual companies refused to co-operate in the law of the land, passed by a democratic Parliament on an issue which had been included in the Labour Party manifesto. Would not he condemn the C.B.I. and the companies for their action?

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman should direct his remarks at Lord Cromer and the gentlemen of the City. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly drawn attention to the difficulties created for the Labour Government by the hostility of the leaders of the class which right hon. and hon. Members opposite represent. Let us hear no more nonsense and hypocrisy about that from the right hon. Gentleman. These Amendments are a straight concession to the employers' associations and put on one side the basic Donovan thesis about the decentralisation of collective bargaining and the unrealities of the formal industry-wide system.
I thought the Royal Commission's Report had shattered once and for all the illusion in which the right hon. Gentleman apparently still persists about the


effectiveness of industry-wide agreements. The Commission said:
… the assumptions of the formal system still exert a powerful influence over men's minds and prevent the informal system from developing into an effective and orderly method of regulation".
It is sad that the right hon. Gentleman has succumbed to the influence of the employers' federations rather than to the view of the Royal Commission.

Mr. Carr: No.

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman might not like to hear it, but we must have the truth.

Mr. Carr: Nonsense.

Mr. Walker: Whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not, he is in these Amendments aligning himself with the employers' federations. This is the effect of these Amendments. He is associating himself with those who cling pathetically to the illusions of the past and who want to hang on to the pretences of a discredited and obsolete system. I thought the right hon. Gentleman welcomed the Royal Commission's Report—indeed I recall the welcome he gave to it—and it is a matter of regret that he now seems to be washing his hands of it.
The informal and fragmented reality of factory bargaining cannot be coordinated into a coherent and rational system by attempting to revert to the past. The growth of plant bargaining in recent years has been an explicit recognition of this fact.

Mr. Carr: Did the hon. Gentleman not hear me say when I moved the Amendment that I am in favour of the extension of plant bargaining? Secondly, is he really saying on behalf of his party that he is opposed to all national bargaining? Is this the point of view of the trade union movement? I do not think it is—any more than it was the view of the Labour Party in another place.

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentle man must recognise that the views put forward on these benches are the views of the Parliamentary Labour Party, not necessarily the view of the trade unions. We claim that because we stand with the trade union movement, we naturally reflect in this House the aims and aspirations of the trade unions and their members,

because we are one and the same, we are part of the same body.
I am accusing the Secretary of State of channelling the forces of change in the wrong direction. We recognise that industry-wide agreements still have some influence and still exist, but they exist in a period of change. There are those who, like the Royal Commission, recognise the forces of change and who can see the direction in which we ought to go; they have put up signposts in that direction. This is a direction in which my right hon. Friends, the Labour Party and I seek, to go. The right hon. Gentleman is turning the signposts round or is turning a blind eye to them. Instead, he has chosen to acquiesce in the demands of the industrial Canutes, the dinosaurs, in an attempt to preserve an unreal and meaningless status quo. It cannot be done. The pretence of the old, centralised bargaining system, based on national negotiations covering a whole industry, has been overtaken by the reality of more meaningful negotiations at factory level.
There is one other point of concern, which is the principal reason that we have tabled our Amendments. This arises directly out of the new subsection (8)(b). It may be that we have misunderstood the situation. It is a complex subject and I am glad that at times we have been given legal guidance by the Solicitor-General. I gather that he is a hieroglyphist in the British Museum—if that is the right word for one who deciphers mysteries—but unfortunately there are not enough Solicitors-General to go round to advise all the shop stewards who will have to follow these provisions. It seems to me that subsection (8)(b) could go beyond the effect I have just been describing. Although it makes provision for the C.I.R. in determining what sole bargaining unit to take into account, the new subsection may give the opportunity to limit the sole bargaining unit in an establishment which falls outside.
Our fear and anxiety is that this power could be used to have a precisely opposite effect from what we should wish to see. In other words, a particular bargaining situation may lead to those seeking to be the sole bargaining agents not being given the power to negotiate.


They would not have the power to raise terms and conditions to a higher level than that which prevails in industry generally.
If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to assure us that this will not be the effect—and I am not saying that this necessarily will be the right hon. Gentleman's intention—then I am afraid we shall have to look carefully at whether we will press the Opposition Amendment to a vote.

Mr. R. Carr: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I was taken aback for a moment that no other hon. Member opposite wishes to say anything on these Amendments, [HON. MEMBERS: "What are you complaining about?"] I am not complaining. I was merely expecting hon. Members to repeat their well-known speeches on this and other subjects. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."]
I was a little astonished at parts of the speech of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker). He began by accusing me of lack of frankness in not saying that the Engineering Employers Federation and other employers federations have pressed this point. There is no question of lack of frankness. This is well-known public knowledge. I am not concealing anything since this is well known to anybody who takes an active interest in the subject. The engineering employers and other employers have made no secret of their concern about the value of national bargaining in certain areas. I received representations from various employers and various employers' associations. It is not my fault if the trade unions had nothing to say one way or the other to me on this subject. They could have come along, but did not.
I suspect, however, that many trade unions do not share the wholehearted enthusiasm of the hon. Gentleman, and apparently of the Official Opposition, for chucking all national bargaining out of the window. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, this was the impression given by the hon. Gentleman, with unusual vehemence. I will look at his words, and perhaps when I see them in cold print that impression will not be so great, and indeed I hope that is so. Certainly my impression was as I have indicated it. What in fact I said in moving the Amendments was that there is no desire to stop the

move towards more and more effective, orderly and stable local bargaining. We completely support the Royal Commission's analysis in this respect.
But we believe—and I think that many people on both sides of industry believe-that within its limits our traditional national bargaining system, well tried and well valued by trade unions as much as by employers, has a part to play. It may be a different part to play from that we have seen in the past, it may be a lesser part, but in our view it would be wrong so to frame this law about bargaining agents that the C.I.R. was not permitted to allow it to play the part which both sides of industry might wish it to play and which, if allowed, would be to the benefit of the whole of industry, workers as much as management, and of the country as a whole. That, therefore, is the intention.
4.30 p.m.
At the very end of his speech, the hon. Member for Doncaster asked a specific question. I confess that I should have appreciated the opportunity afforded by a speech from the Opposition benches of a few moments' grace during which I could have checked the technicalities of the question, but I shall answer him in this way. I assure him that it is not the intention, as I think he accepts, that the Amendment should have the effect which he suggested; and I do not believe that it will do so.
We have to realise that it is inherent in our whole system, and inherent in the concept of the C.I.R. approach, whether as envisaged originally by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and her hon. Friends or as now extended within the concept of the present Bill, that we do not tie the hands of the C.I.R. We consider, on balance, that, rather than tie the hands of the C.I.R. too closely, we ought to set up an industrially sophisticated body and leave it to use its common sense in the circumstances and on the merits of each individual case. We do not think it right to tie its hands in detail by statute as to what it can and cannot do. That is the sense of the Amendment. All these Amendments give the C.I.R. more discretion rather than less.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the C.I.R. could not do what he suggests. I have had advice, although, obviously, I have not had a chance to discuss it.


While I have been speaking, I have received definite advice from advisers whom I trust, just as I know the hon. Gentleman trusted them in the past, that the C.I.R. could not do what the hon. Gentleman fears. It is very definitely not our intention that it should be able to do it, and I think I can now add that it will not be able to do it. I think it right that we should give the C.I.R. the discretion which we propose.
I accept that feelings run strong about the Bill, but I hope that all of us will realise that the C.I.R. is there as an industrially sophisticated body, and I regret the present attitude of the trade unions to it. I shall do my best to appoint to that body people of genuine professional skill and knowledge, and recognised as such by all sides of industry. There will remain seats vacant for people from the trade union movement if and when they feel able to participate in it.
I very much hope that the trade unions, whatever view they may take about the Bill and whatever hopes they may have that at some date there may come another Government who will repeal it, will realise that, while the Bill is on the Statute Book, it will be not just in the national interest but in the interests of the trade unions and their members that they should participate in these bodies. They will be welcome. The places will be there for them. Even if the Bill provides a context which they sincerely do not like, I hope that all of us will do what we can to encourage them to participate, for I believe that it will be to their benefit, and not just to the country's benefit, that they should do so.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: In his opening remarks, the right hon. Gentleman invited a contribution or two from our back benches, so I put this point to him now. It is his conception of the C.I.R. which has mucked the thing up. The central idea of a body of this kind brought together has been supported by a good many of us on this side, but in the situation created by the Secretary of State there is unanimous opposition from the entire officialdom of the trade union movement—from the extremities of the Left to the extremities of the Right—to the repressive aspect of the set of circumstances which he has created. It is his concept which has mucked the whole

idea up, yet he seems so disappointed about it.

Mr. Carr: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise; nor do I believe that events will prove his suggestion right. I am sure that events will prove, even if I am not absolutely right, that I am more right in my hopes than he is in his fears. But I still say to the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends that, even in the framework of this legislation which they so deeply dislike, the C.I.R. itself is given no direct powers. This is deliberate. I still hope that the vast majority of cases going to the C.I.R. will go through the normal voluntary machinery. That is my hope and my intention. Only rarely, I believe, will the C.I.R. deal with a case which has to go to it through lack of voluntary procedure and willingness via the channels of the National Industrial Relations Court. I hope that those will be but rare cases, but even in those rare cases—this has been deliberately done—the C.I.R. will be denied any teeth, any powers of compulsion. It is still a body of inquiry, report and persuasion, centred very much in the voluntary field.
I hope that, as the months go by, this will come to be realised and that distinguished members from the trade union movement will feel able to serve on it without in any way forgoing their basic dislike and disapproval of the Bill and their hopes that one day it will be repealed.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Is it not plain that a wholly moderate and reasonable trade unionist like Mr. George Woodcock would never have resigned the chairmanship, a job he loves, if he had not been totally convinced by his experience of the working of the C.I.R. that the Bill would damage that work?

Mr. Carr: That was not the reason which Mr. George Woodcock gave. Hon. Members on both sides who wish to know his views ought to turn to the actual words which Mr. Woodcock used. Naturally, I have not got them with me at the moment, so I am speaking from recollection, just as the right hon. Lady must be, but my recollection is that, while making clear that he did not support the Bill—he has always made that clear—he made clear also that it was not because of the Bill that he felt he must resign


from the C.I.R. but because of the decision of the T.U.C. in respect of it.

Mr. John Prescott: Because of the Bill.

Mr. Carr: But it was indirect as far as Mr. Woodcock was concerned. [An HON. MEMBER: "This is nit-picking."] If it be nit-picking, hon. Members are accusing Mr. Woodcock of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Mr. Woodcock made that clear, and I suggest that hon. Members should read the terms of his statement. He made clear that it was because of the attitude of the T.U.C. not because the Bill itself made the task of the C.I.R. impossible, that he resigned.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The right hon. Gentleman seemed disappointed that we did not give him the benefit of our knowledge of these matters. But this is a huge issue—we all realise how big it is—and the Amendments which he has put to us run in a very narrow groove compared with the magnitude of the subject matter. We do not want to open up the whole subject now. Indeed, you would probably rule us out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we went into the wider aspects of it.
When the right hon. Gentleman merely generalises on whether there should be national or local bargaining, he does not do justice to the subject. I know of industries in which there never will be local bargaining no matter what the law says. I know of industries in which, in the course of the next few years, national bargaining will cease to exist. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman puts it in the black and white context, he is not doing justice to a huge issue.
I can understand the suspicions and anxieties which have been aroused in my hon. Friends by certain advances by the Engineering Employers Federation. It seems that, in the engineering industry, which to my knowledge has had local bargaining for the last 40 years, it is putting the clock back if those same employers are now emphasising the need to keep national bargaining as the premier structure within that industry. The preservation of national bargaining, as it has been preserved, has done a lot of harm, especially in some sections of engineering which are causing the most trouble.
I can look back a long way on these matters. For instance, I believe that the problems in the motor car industry stem from the fact that it tried to adapt itself to national bargaining, which has nothing to do with the production of motor cars. We know, especially in engineering, that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Orme) said, national bargaining has been looked upon as the way to establish minimum basics.

Mr. Orme: Holidays.

Mr. Lee: But this presupposes that there will be superimposed a payment by results system. I have always felt that where we went wrong in the car industry was in trying to add to a pretty low basic rate a payment by results system. This is nonsense, as the Minister will probably agree. It was because we were all hog-tied by the national bargaining system that many of the troubles which we have since experienced in that one industry have come about.
I know the right hon. Gentleman well enough to appreciate that he would not wish to preserve a national structure which presupposed that it went wrong locally the moment we attempted to apply it. It is sad to see any kind of industry in which that can happen being limited in its ability to go forward to a negotiation which can get rid of much of the structure which has caused these problems in the past.
I thought how remarkable it was that Donovan was so out of date. We appear to be told that it is a good thing to have local bargaining. Some of us were indulging in factory bargaining 30 years ago, long before the issue became a question whether it should be done nationally or locally. I was on national committees looking after national bargaining at the same time as I was conducting factory negotiations which, in many ways, superseded national bargaining.
If the right hon. Gentleman is to take this to the logical point of saying that, for instance, in the coal mining industry we want now to recreate district bargaining, he will have a holocaust on his hands. Years ago, the question of district bargaining in the coal mining industry was the source of a huge number of strikes. I have no authority to speak for the union concerned, but I am sure that it would not accept any idea of returning


to the district bargaining which it hated so much. Who could believe that, for example, in the railway industry, there could be local bargaining? The whole thing just would not stand up.
The problem facing the right hon. Gentleman is that it is not possible in legislation to lay down a structure which is applicable to all these varying industries. I hope that in his discussions with industry he will keep this point very much in mind.

Mr. John Fraser: I have been asked to reply for the Opposition.
When the Secretary of State spoke a second time, with the leave of the House, he spoke with all the pain of a kindly uncle who has been offended because some refractory nephew has refused a present which has been sent to him. The reason that the trade unions have not cooperated with the C.I.R. is. that it is inextricably linked to the working of the Industrial Court, to the imposition of damages, and to the legal paraphernalia and proceedings which they find so repugnant and which most sensible observers believe will not be helpful to the improvement of industrial relations. It is for that reason that we have the Amendment to Amendment No. 92.
If, when he opened the debate, the right hon. Gentleman was speaking about the inter-relationship between local and national bargaining, if he was speaking in the context of a voluntary system without the imposition of courts, orders and proceedings for damages for unfair industrial practice, his remarks would have been absolutely impeccable. But the proposal which he is putting before the House is that the Commission should be able to exclude from a sole bargaining agent arrangement certain matters to be negotiated at national level. That is good enough. Indeed, in our Amendment to Amendment No. 92 we say that the Commission may specify the more extensive bargaining arrangements in question. But if we accept the rest of the Amendment, it means that the process of law can follow a union which tries to negotiate a matter which has been reserved in which it does not have exclusive negotiating rights. Such a union could find itself brought before the court for damages for an unfair industrial practice. These proposals taken on their own

are unexceptionable; it is linking them with the legal paraphernalia of the court which the trade union movement finds unacceptable. That is why, at the appropriate stage, we shall divide upon our Amendment.

Mr. David Waddington: I apologise for not having been in the House in the last few minutes. I thought that it might be worth going to the Library, in view of the exchange which took place between my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), to look into that matter. I have been to the Library and been able to find, in The Times of 26th March, the full reasons stated by Mr. Woodcock for his resignation as Chairman of the C.I.R. The report, by Mr. Michael Thomas, states:
Mr. Woodcock made it clear yesterday, both in his letter to Mr. Carr and in a public statement, that he would not have resigned only because of the functions assigned to the C.I.R. by the Industrial Relations Bill. It was the trade union boycott that had decided him.
He had hoped that when the Bill became law most references to the C.I.R. would be by the consent of the parties and not require the use of compulsory provisions. But to help employers and unions in voluntary reform"—
[Interruption.] I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to listen, because this is important. It gives the lie to the suggestion by the right hon. Lady that Mr. George Woodcock resigned because of the terms of the Bill. He did not.
I will repeat that last passage so that it may sink into the consciousness of hon. Gentlemen opposite:
He had hoped that when the Bill became law most references to the C.I.R. would be by the consent of the parties and not require the use of compulsory provisions. But to help employers and unions in voluntary reform the C.I.R. needed their assistance and co-operation.
From now on, by the decision of the special Trades Union Congress last week, there would be no union co-operation. To extend their boycott to all the activities of the C.I.R., Mr. Woodcock said, was to assumed 'comprehensive guilt from limited association'.
I would have thought it was obvious from that passage that Mr. George Woodcock was impliedly criticising the special meeting of the T.U.C. for its decision in this matter and making it plain that he was not resigning because of the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: The hon. Gentleman ought to be


aware that on his appointment Mr. Woodcock gave an interview in which he referred to the C.I.R. as the greatest advance in industrial relations in his lifetime, and that during that same interview he said that he was opposed to the principle of legal enforceability. He repeated that statement, and the reason for his resignation is clear. It was that he objected to legal enforceability being imposed on the C.I.R.

Mr. Waddington: I should have thought that what mattered in the context of this argument was what Mr. Woodcock said at the time of his resignation, not what he said at the time of his appointment. What he said at the time of his resignation is apparent from that report in the Press.

Mr. Harold Walker: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us the reasons for the resignations of Commissioners Paynter, Allen and Flanders?

Mr. Waddington: I thought that I was rather astute in dashing out of the Chamber to get the report from which I have just quoted. If the hon. Gentleman will give me another five minutes, I shall see whether I can get some more reports.

Mr. Walker: Not only did Mr. George Woodcock resign because of the Bill, but Commissioners Paynter and Allen made it clear that they were resigning because of the introduction of this legislation.

Mr. Waddington: I was merely dealing with the reasons for Mr. George Woodsock's resignation. He did not resign beat use of the Bill.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Before we conclude the debate on this matter, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for leaving the Chamber in order to get a report of what Mr. George Woodsock said. It completely vindicates the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), and it is a good thing that that is on the record.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 76, in page 33, line 7, leave out "which will be binding

on them "and insert" on their behalf".

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a clarifying Amendment. Its purpose is to clarify the definition of a joint negotiating panel, that is, a body consisting of representatives of two or more organisations of workers. The purpose is to ensure that the definition of a joint negotiating panel is not limited to those panels which are authorised to enter into legally enforceable agreements. It was never the intention to make the definition so narrow, but that could possibly be the effect of the paragraph as it is drafted.
What we want to ensure is simply that a body is a joint negotiating panel if it can commit any organisations of workers represented on the panel as if those organisations of workers were a direct party to any agreement reached by the panel. The Amendment will ensure that even if joint negotiating panels are only authorised to enter into agreements which are binding in honour only they will fall within the definition of "joint negotiating panel".
We feel that this is clearly a sensible Amendment, and we hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. Rose: The hon. Gentleman referred to this as a clarifying Amendment. I suppose that it is an advance on some of the mystifying Amendments that we have had from his right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. But it is more than that, though I do not want to take up much time on this.

The Amendment is necessary, and the Government have belatedly recognised that because one can hardly conceive of any joint negotiating panel which could be vested with the power to enter into binding collective agreements. As the Clause stood it would have included, and restricted inclusion to, panels vested with those powers. That would have been a nonsense, and the Government have recognised that.

Paragraph (d) presumed far too much, and now the reality is recognised by the hon. Gentleman, by implication, in the Amendment. The reality is that few, if


any, collective agreements will be made in circumstances where the parties intend them to be binding. The Government know that from yesterday's debate. All that they have imported into the law is a preliminary point in almost every set of negotiations, whether the agreement should or should not be binding, and by this they have changed the whole process of collective bargaining. But we went over that pretty thoroughly yesterday. To have left the original wording would have been to ignore reality.

Because it is always pleasant to see the Government come to their senses, even on a narrow point such as this, we do not intend to divide the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 44

REFERENCE TO COMMISSION ON APPLICATION UNDER S. 43

Lords Amendment: No. 79, leave out Clause 44 and insert the following new Clause—
44.—(1) If on an application under section 43 of this Act the Industrial Court is satisfied—

(a) that it is not precluded by section 51(5) of this Act from entertaining the application;
(b) that the employer or employers to whom the application relates, and the organisations of workers appearing to the Court to have, or to be seeking, negotiating rights in respect of the whole or part of the specified group of employees, have endeavoured to settle the questions proposed to be referred to the Commission and, for that purpose, have made adequate use of any facilities for conciliation available to them, whether in pursuance of section 43(4) of this Act or otherwise; and
(c) that reference of those questions to the Commission is necessary with a view to promoting a satisfactory and lasting settlement of them,

the Industrial Court, subject to the next following subsection, shall refer those questions to the Commission.
(2) The Industrial Court shall not be required to refer any questions under this section to the Commission on an application relating to a group of employees if it appears to the Court that—

(a) a reference under this section relating to that group of employees or relating to a group of employees which in the opinion of the Court does not substantially differ

from it, was under consideration by the Commission within the period of two years ending with the date of the application, and
(b) in the circumstances a further reference on that application after so short an interval would not be justified."

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I think that it will be convenient if, with this Amendment, we take the following Lords Amendments: No. 80, in page 35, line 11, leave out "question has been referred" and insert "reference has been made".
No. 81, in line 15, leave out "question" and insert "questions in issue".
No. 82, in line 19, leave out from "after" to "and" in line 20 and insert
such a reference has been made".
No. 83, in line 22, leave out "question" and insert "questions in issue".
No. 85, in line 33, leave out from "employer" to end of line 36 and insert
unless he is an associated employer in relation to the employer or employers to whom the reference originally related".
No. 86, in page 36, line 13, leave out "a question" and insert "any questions".
No. 87, in line 15, leave out "that question" and insert "those questions".
No. 88, in line 19, leave out "on that question".
No. 89, in line 24, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 27 and insert
comprised in the reference, either as originally made or as extended".

The Solicitor-General: These Amendments are all related to the same point. They are all designed to restructure Clause 44 and to make some associated Amendments to Clauses 45 and 46 in the light of Amendments made to Clause 43 by this House on Report.

Amendment No. 79 consists of replacing old Clause 44 by a new one. Amendments Nos. 80 to 83, 86 and 87 involve replacing the singular with the plural at six places in Clauses 45 and 46. Amendment No. 85 simplifies the meaning of "associated employer" in Clause 45. Amendment No. 89 does the same in


Clause 46 in relation to an extended reference.

The effect of all these Amendments is to take account of the changes made in this House to Clause 43, whereby the Commission, when a question is referred to it, has greater flexibility and can deal more appropriately with a reference. The questions as originally formulated in the old Clauses 42 and 43, without Amendment, were in different forms according to whether the application was made by an employer, a union or the Secretary of State.

This House altered that so as to make the same questions arise whoever made the reference and so as to enable the Commission to investigate in all these cases both the question of the bargaining unit and the question of the bargaining agent. These changes are a necessary consequence of those previously accepted in this House to Clauses 44, 45 and 46.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Could the Solicitor-General say whether in Amendment No. 85 the term "associated employer" has the official meaning given to the words in Clause 158(6), the definition Clause? The hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect that a specialised meaning is given to "associated employer". Is that the meaning given to it in Amendment No. 35 and, indeed, throughout the Bill?

The Solicitor-General: Yes, that is the intention.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Heffer: As the Solicitor-General said, the object of Amendment No. 79 is to substitute new Clause No. 44 for the present Clause 44. We on these benches are in some difficulty. During the Committee stage the Government tabled certain Amendments, and, if I remember aright, those Amendments were not reached in Committee because of the operation of the guillotine. They concerned the sole bargaining agent, and at this stage I ought to reiterate that this is a principle to which we are opposed because we are opposed to the whole concept of the agency shop. I appreciate that we have discussed this matter in connection with previous Amendments; it is ground that we have already

traversed, but that cannot be avoided, much as we would like to do so.
As the Solicitor-General said, new Clause 44 must be taken in conjunction with Clause 43. This proposed new Clause, which is entitled
Reference to Commission on application under s.43",
like the one which it replaces, precludes any application under Clause 51(5). At this stage the Clause becomes extraordinarily complicated because Clause 51(5) must be considered in association with Clauses 49 and 50. Clause 49 allows any employee in a sole bargaining agency to make an application to the Industrial Court. A trade union should not continue to represent the workers if the workers do not want it to do so, provided that, I think, two-fifths of the workers signify in writing that they support the application. By Clause 48, unless at least one-fifth of the employees have signified their support for the application, an application cannot be made.
We believe that the whole principle is wrong. We regard it as a most complicated business and, although it may tidy up the other Clause, nevertheless, we cannot support the Amendment because we oppose the whole principle. We believe that the C.I.R. should not be involved. The Industrial Court should not determine any such questions. It should exist on the basis on which it previously existed. We do not believe that this proposal would help good industrial relations. In addition, it would mean that the courts would be very much overloaded and that there would be long periods of time before issues could be solved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) the other day mentioned "Catch 22". The more one goes into this and discovers the cross references involved, the more complicated it becomes. In those circumstances, we shall have to oppose the Amendment.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 221.

Division No. 459.]
AYES
[5.5 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mitchell, Lt. Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Moate, Roger


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Molyneaux, James


Atkins, Humphrey
Goodhart, Philip
Money, Ernle


Awdry, Daniel
Goodhew, Victor
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gorst, John
Monro, Hector


Balniel, Lord
Gower, Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gray, Hamish
More, Jasper


Batsford, Brian
Green, Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mudd, David


Benyon, W.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Murton, Oscar


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grylls, Michael
Neave, Airey


Biffen, John
Gummer, Selwyn
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Gurden, Harold
Normanton, Tom


Blaker, Peter
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Nott, John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Onslow, Cranley


Body, Richard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Boscawen, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Osborn, John


Bowden, Andrew
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Braine, Bernard
Hastings, Stephen
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bray, Ronald
Havers, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Brewis, John
Hawkins, Paul
Peel, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hayhoe, Barney
Percival, Ian


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hicks, Robert
Pink, R. Bonner


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Higgins, Terence L.
Pounder, Rafton


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hiley, Joseph
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bryan, Paul
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Prior, Rt, Hn. J. M. L.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Buck, Antony
Holt, Miss Mary
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hordern, Peter
Raison, Timothy


Burden, F. A.
Hornby, Richard
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Redmond, Robert


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Channon, Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hunt, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Churchill, W. S.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
James, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Cockeram, Eric
Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Coombs, Derek
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Jopling, Michael
Rost, Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Russell, Sir Ronald


Costain, A. P.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Scott, Nicholas


Critchley, Julian
Kilfedder, James
Scott-Hopkins, James


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Curran, Charles
Kinsey, J. R.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kirk, Peter
Shelton, William (Clapham)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Knox, David
Simeons, Charles


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Lambton, Antony
Sinclair, Sir George


Dean, Paul
Lane, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Dixon, Piers
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Soref, Harold


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speed, Keith


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alee
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Spence, John


Drayson, G. B.
Longden, Gilbert
Sproat, Iain


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Loveridge, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Eden, Sir John
Luce, R. N.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Stokes, John


Emery, Peter
McCrindle, R. A.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Eyre, Reginald
McLaren, Martin
Sutcliffe, John


Farr, John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Tapsell, Peter


Fell, Anthony
McMaster, Stanley
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Fidler, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Temple, John M.


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Maddan, Martin
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David
Thomas, John stradling (Monmouth)


Fortescue, Tim
Marten, Neil
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fowler, Norman
Mather, Carol
Tilney, John


Fox, Marcus
Maude, Angus
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Mawby, Ray
Trew, Peter


Fry, Peter

Tugendhat, Christopher


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Turron, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Gardner, Edward
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Vickers, Dame Joan







Waddington, David
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Woodnutt, Mark


Walder, David (Clitheroe)
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Worsley, Marcus


Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wiggin, Jerry



Wall, Patrick
Wilkinson, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Walters, Dennis
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Ward, Dame Irene
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Mr. Hugh Rossi.


Weatherill, Bernard
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher





NOES


Albu, Austen
Foley, Maurice
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Foot, Michael
Meacher, Michael


Allen, Scholefield
Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Forrester, John
Mendelson, John


Ashley, Jack
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce


Ashton, Joen
Galpern, Sir Myer
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Atkinson, Norman
Garrett, W. E.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gilbert, Dr. John
Molloy, William


Barnes, Michael
Golding, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Barnett, Joel
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Beaney, Alan
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Movie, Roland


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Murray, Ronald King


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Ogden, Eric


Bishop, E. S.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
O'Halloran, Michael


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hardy, Peter
O'Malley, Brian


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oram, Bert


Booth, Albert
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Orme, Stanley


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hattersley, Roy
Oswald, Thomas


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bradley, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.
Paget, R. T.


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Horam, John
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Huckfield, Leslie
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pendry, Tom


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pentland, Norman


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, Ernest C.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hunter, Adam
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Prescott, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Janner, Greville
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cohen, Stanley
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefiel)


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cronin, John
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roper, John


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rose, Paul B.


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Sandelson, Neville


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davits, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Kaufman, Gerald
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kinnock, Neil
Skinner, Dennis


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lambie, David
Small, William


Delargy, H. J.
Latham, Arthur
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lawson, George
Spearing, Nigel


Doig, Peter
Leadbitter, Ted
Spriggs, Leslie


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stallard, A. W.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leonard, Dick
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Driberg, Tom
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lipton, Marcus
Strang, Gavin


Dunnett, Jack
Loughlin, Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Edelman, Maurice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomson, Rt Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


Ellis, Tom
McGuire, Michael
Tomney, Frank


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Torney, Tom


Evans, Fred
Maclennan, Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Urwin, T. W.


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Varley, Eric G.


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Marquand, David
Wallace, George


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Watkins, David




Weitzman, David







Whitehead, Phillip
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Woof, Robert
Mr. William Hamling.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 46

REPORT OF COMMISSION ON REFERENCE UNDER S. 44

Lords Amendment: No. 90, in page 36, leave out lines 29 to 34 and insert:
appearing to the Commission to be directly concerned in the questions specified in the reference".

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is to require the Commission on Industrial Relations to send a copy of its report under Clause 46 not only to the recommended bargaining agent but also to any other organisations of workers which appear to the Commission to be directly concerned in the questions considered by it. This seems to us a sensible and desirable change, and, what is more, it is in accordance with the C.I.R's present practice.
It seems right, for instance, that, as a matter of courtesy, any organisation of workers whose claims to recognition were considered in a Clause 46 report should receive a copy of the report rather than have to read about it in the Press or buy a copy for themselves. This is a small but sensible adjustment, and I hope that the Opposition will be able to accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 91, in page 37, line 1, after "and" insert "professional or other".

Mr. R. Carr: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Clause 46(3) gives directions to the C.I.R. as to the sort of considerations that it must take into account in making a recommendation about bargaining agents. It says that:
… the Commission shall consider the extent to which different descriptions of employees in that group have interests in common, having regard in particular, in relation to each such description of employees, to—


(a) the nature of the work which they are employed to do, and
(b) their training, experience and qualifications."

The Amendment will make the last reference one to "professional or other" qualifications and will allay fears expressed in the early stages of the Bill and very strongly in another place.

We could see no objection to introducing this. We believe that it makes the position clearer and reassures people who were concerned that otherwise their point of view and their needs might not have to be taken into account. It is for clarification and to set at rest the fears of people who have no reason to fear but whom we thought it right to reassure.

Mr. Harold Walker: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman thinks he has achieved by trying to reassure certain people of certain things, he has not reassured me of anything. I remind him of our powerful expression of opposition to the division of trade unionists that is represented by the special register and this method of catering for professional workers.
That powerful opposition was voiced on Report, and I do not recall the right hon. Gentleman presenting an adequate explanation on that occasion of what the Government mean by professional workers or professional persons. What criteria are to be employed to remove these individuals from the rest of the trade union movement?
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that on a number of occasions he lectured me about the wordiness of proposals. I recall his complaints about the superfluity of words in legislation. Indeed, I remember the right hon. Gentleman frequently using the word "tautology" in this context. Why has he now introduced these superfluous words? If it is desirable to have this discrimination in favour of a certain group of people, it should be covered by the existing wording which relates to their training, experience and qualifications.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the need to allay fears, but he did not say


what they were or who had voiced them. He then said that these steps were being taken to reassure people. Who needs reassuring? Then he told us that certain needs had to be met. What are they?
While acknowledging the practicalities of the situation and the need to modify absolute principles to meet the real needs of the situation, the guiding principle should always be that justice is indivisible. Likewise, the trade union movement is indivisible. Here the right hon. Gentleman is introducing something that is divisive, and unless he can offer a satisfactory explanation, I shall have to recommend my hon. Friends to oppose the Amendment in the Lobby.

Mr. Orme: The Secretary of State began by referring to a direction to the C.I.R. Earlier he said that the C.I.R. was independent and free—that George Woodcock had resigned not because he did not want to work with the C.I.R. but because the T.U.C. had made it impossible for him to do so. Now he is saying that the C.I.R. is to be directed to take special account of professional organisations and others.
This division which the right hon. Gentleman is attempting to create within the trade union movement, between ordinary and professional groups of workers, is deplorable. Those of us who have the trade union movement at heart have watched with pride the spread of unionism into the middle classes and professional groups. Bona fide trade unions have sprung up in many sections of the professional sphere where unionism did not exist previously. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be trying to call a deliberate halt to this progress through the special register and by the C.I.R. being directed to treat certain groups of workers differently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Don-caster (Mr. Harold Walker) asked some pertinent questions to which the right hon. Gentleman must reply. We are entitled to know what the fears are and who expressed them. Have they come from doctors, nurses or professional engineers? Hon. Members may have in mind one professional organisation which was involved in the infamous Newcastle-upon-Tyne case. Why do the Government wish to introduce different standards

for professional workers? I ask this without any hostility to these people.
With the development of the multinational company, higher management and other professional groups are realising the importance of trade unionism. They need protection nowadays because many of the decisions affecting their future are taken not in Britain but in the United States, Frankfurt and elsewhere.

Mr. Rose: Will my hon. Friend comment on the problem that will face many professional workers who are not members of professional organisations which are chartered or limited companies? Is it not a fact that many professional workers who join organisations which are real trade unions in the full sense of the term, such as A.S.T.M.S., will be placed at a severe disadvantage as a result of this Measure? Does my hon. Friend agree that the real purpose of this part of the Bill and of the special register is to undermine the extension of professional trade unionism by using the phrase "professional workers" in an entirely different sense?

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, particularly in referring to the fantastic success that A.S.T.M.S. has had in recent years in organising beyond the level of what are called ordinary workers and into the professional classes. He is also right to say that this Measure may result in professional workers being placed in a different category from their counterparts and that this could represent a threat to the extended organisation of bodies like A.S.T.M.S.
It is clear that the battle will be fought far from the factory bench. The traditional conflict that has gone on over trade union matters of this kind in the mines and docks will be transferred to the higher echelons of the industrial sphere, mainly because of the vast number of workers in the middle category of management and those with professional ability who have become organised in trade unions.
The right hon. Gentleman is going out of his way to protect small select groups. The Royal College of Nursing comes to mind in this context. Many organisations have not been militant in fighting for the rights of their members. For example, the rights of nurses were not sufficiently sought because the nurses' representatives


did not consider the task of improving rights a suitable job for them. Bank employees also found the need for trade unionism. It was not until the Union of Bank Employees was formed, and exposed the manner in which its members had been left behind, that a sufficient change was brought about in banking.
Many organisations representing select groups of workers have not developed in a trade union sense. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that these provisions will in any way inhibit the activities of, for example, Clive Jenkins? Why is he taking this action?

Mr. R. Carr: Do not these people have the same rights as others to develop their organisations as they wish? Why, because they want to do it their way, should they automatically be labelled reactionary, when other people are automatically labelled progressive?

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Orme: They were so unsuccessful on representing those whom they purported to represent that these other organisations have replaced them. My accusation is that the Minister is trying to bolster up these old organisations, and stop the spread of broad trade unionism in the sense of unions which are affiliated to the T.U.C. and prepared to associate with industrial trade unionism. I should have thought that the Minister, and particularly the Prime Minister, who talks of the classless society, would have been pleased to see the professional unions more towards the T.U.C. We believe that these present proposals will retard that movement.

Mr. David Mitchell: It becomes increasingly obvious that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is having great difficulty in sustaining the mountain of rhetoric he heaps on every House of Lords Amendment. He has just referred to the C.I.R. being dictated to, yet in the Bill we find that, far from the C.I.R. being dictated to, the whole of the relevant passage is qualified by the words "the Commission shall consider" or the "Commission shall have regard".
There is no question there of dictatorship, of the wording being binding on the C.I.R. in its totality. Paragraph (b) adds that it is designed to

… promote a satisfactory and lasting settlement of the questions in issue in the reference.
How can that be tied up with the hon. Gentleman's comments, which indicated a deep purpose of dissension in the Government's mind, and a degree of dictatorship to the C.I.R. which is not in the Bill?

Mr. Ronald King Murray: The words "professional or other" appear to be wholly out of place, and the explanation given to us does not convince me. The present wording of the appropriate part of the subsection covers the nature of the work the people are employed to do, and
their training, experience and qualifications.
A moment ago the Secretary of State said that we were all equal in our wishes, or that they were all equal in their wishes; I am not sure which version he used. If the right hon. Gentleman really means what he says, the logic of his thinking should be to leave paragraph (b) as it stands, because no artificial distinction is made with regard to training, experience or qualifications.
I do not want to be legalistic, but I think that both from the legal point of view and from the point of view of common sense the word "qualifications" is very apt to cover the whole spectrum of qualifications of the semi-skilled worker up to the highly-skilled technician and up to and including the highest level of professional qualifications. Therefore, the use of the word "qualifications" does all that this part of the Bill is required to do, according to what the Secretary of State has told us.
If that is so, it is impossible to appreciate why the words "professional or other" are brought in. They do not qualify anything. On the contrary, they rather introduce an ambiguity, and suggest that at least some kind of distinction is being drawn between professional and non-professional qualifications. Yet it appears from what we have been told that that is not intended. In that case, why put in these words?
There is a rule of law known as the ejusdem generis rule, though I hesitate to say that it applies here. Yet it is just possible that that rule might be conceived of as applying here, in which case the word "professional" would, as it were, redirect the meaning of "or other", and that instead of reading this in the sense


of professional qualifications on the one hand and other qualifications on the other the two might be taken together.

The Solicitor-General: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that his own extreme hesitation in advancing that argument—and it is inadmissible in this context—is due to the fact that it refers only to "professional or other", and that by identifying only the professional qualification it is not taken to identify a genus, and that it is for that reason that his argument, rightly advanced with hesitation, is without foundation?

Mr. Murray: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his intervention. I put the argument forward very tentatively, and he is probably right to say that it is not a sound argument. On the other hand, I am not convinced by what the Solicitor-General said, because it seems not certain that a court would take the view that no genus is defined. The word "professional" is special, and if one comes across that word with other words of qualification the normal canon would bring the ejusdem generis rule into play. The word "professional" is very special, and if we have that word with the words "or other qualifications" for the first time a court might take the view that this word, with the others attached, might attract that principle. I put it as a possibility which cannot be ruled out, and as long as that possibility exists I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the Amendment.

Mr. R. Carr: I admire and welcome the ingenuities of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray), and I am even more grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for entering into a legal argument, which, as a non-lawyer, I am not able to do. It may not surprise the hon. and learned Gentleman to learn that I am more inclined to take my hon. and learned Friend's advice than his on this occasion.
The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) pointed out with some fairness that in recent years, when he and I sat on different sides of the House from those on which we now sit, I used at times to chide him for the inclusion of unnecessary words in legislation, and I

do not in any way object to his getting his own back. It is now my turn to bend over and take six of the best, and I receive them, I hope, with equanimity.
The reason for the introduction of these words was to allay fears, and to reassure. Hon. Members opposite have asked "Who? "and" What?", but their remarks show that they know the answers. The people in mind are people like professional engineers, doctors, and the like, who find themselves in modern employment, in the way in which both modern industry and modern medical research, for instance, is developing, working in the midst of a large number of people in conditions which did not apply some years ago. Those people have genuine fears. The fears may be unreasonable; fears often are, even though they are genuine. I do not think that we should in any way object to giving reassurance provided that in doing so we do not harm anyone else. I do not believe that this recognition of those fears and this reassurance in any way harm anyone else. I therefore see no objection to the Amendment.
The subsection of which the phrase forms part charges the Commission not only to take account of these things and these people but to take account of the identities and common interests of all groups of employees within the union at which the Commission is looking. It is, therefore, not exclusive of others. We have here people who increasingly find themselves as little minority groups within larger units and, whether they are reasonable or right, they have these fears and it is right to reassure them.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) pointed out that trade unions were now spreading into the middle and professional classes. That is right and inevitable, and it will go on. But, if that is so, I should have thought that not only did we owe these people the right to develop their organisations in their own way, but that if the more traditional type of trade union, to put it that way, wanted to win them over into its ranks, and it could well be in their long-term interests so to be won, such a trade union would be well advised not to have overridden, or to have seemed to have overridden, the genuine fears of such people. Rightly or wrongly, some of them are afraid that


they will be swallowed in an environment which is alien to them and which at this stage they do not believe to be in their interests.
It may well come about that if the trade unions concerned advance their cause and their recruiting with some sensitivity for the feelings of these people and for the feelings of others, they will be won over, in which case that will probably be for the general orderliness of the industry and the bargaining that has to take place and in the interests of the people concerned, but these feelings must be treated with a little sensitivity and understanding.

Mr. Rose: Would not the right hon. Gentleman treat with the same sensitivity and understand the fears advanced by many members of organisations such as A.S.T.M.S., because by definition many professional workers have to join a professional organisation in order to work in the profession and that professional organisation may have some negotiating right which automatically puts A.S.T.M.S. at a disadvantage?
Secondly and more important, if it does not register, it cannot get an agency shop, and the organisation which does register may apply for an agency shop, so that A.S.T.M.S. would be at a second disadvantage. I believe that A.S.T.M.S. would overcome that disadvantage as there are various methods of doing so, but, with his great sensitivity, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that these fears are being expressed far and wide by many professional workers?

Mr. Carr: Of course I do. One way out of one dilemma of A.S.T.M.S. would be to register, and that would be sensible, right and proper. But if it decides not to do so—and it is perfectly free so to decide—it is not free to decide in all ways, to do some things but not to do others.
Of course we recognise the fears of members of A.S.T.M.S., but in any particular circumstances we ought to appreciate more particularly the fears of a minority. It will be within the recollection of the House that when these matters were discussed earlier I strongly refused to consider suggestions for giving in specific terms special consideration to some minorities but not to others. I said that if I had some understanding of the fears

of two or three doctors working among 300 or 400 clerical workers, equally I could understand the fears of two or three clerical workers working among 300 or 400 doctors. In whatever circumstances, one should have particular regard to the genuine fears of the minority. That is what we are doing here.

Mr. Harold Walker: Would the right hon. Gentleman express equal concern on behalf of those tiny minorities which are discriminated against by professional bodies? Here I hope I shall touch a responsive chord in the right hon. Gentleman. He and I were discussing our mutual disabilities the other evening and we were referring to the way in which osteopaths are not recognised by the medical profession and as such discriminated against by a profession organisation. I should like him equally to turn his attention to that kind of situation.

Mr. Carr: Indeed, but that is not an industrial relations matter. That is a matter of statutory professional qualifications, the sort of qualifications which the country in its wisdom, or lack of it, believes it right for a man to possess before he can offer a certain service in certain important areas. It is an important matter, but this does not concern the industrial relations position of minorities, which is what we are concerned with now.
The Opposition are, of course, entirely free to decide whether to divide the House. We believe that these words should be included. We believe that they will allay fears which may be unfounded, but which are genuine, without harming majority interests now or in prospect.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Charles Curran: I am glad that my right hon. Friend is sticking firmly to the point and refusing to retreat before the rather confused arguments which are being addressed to him. This is a matter of great importance. The question is whether people with professional qualifications are to be allowed to stick together if they want to.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). If I understood him aright, he said that there was something wrong about that and that it was a matter for suspicion, alarm and apprehension if people holding professional qualifications in accountancy,


engineering, or medicine chose when entering industry to act collectively with others sharing that qualification. I cannot for the life of me see why they should not. I cannot see why, if they choose to do their bargaining through a professional organisation, the law should get in their way.

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman has got my argument wrong. We are not opposing professional people joining an organisation of accountants or lawyers. We are saying that where appropriate they should also join a bona fide trade union.

Mr. Curran: Exactly. The hon. Gentleman has put it very clearly. He did not put it so clearly in his speech. If people want to join a trade union, by all means let them do so; but what about those who do not? Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to give people who wish to do their bargaining through a professional organisation and do not want to join a trade union the freedom so to choose, or does he wish to deprive them of that freedom?

Mr. Orme: If people who are not in a union do not expect and do not receive the benefits enjoyed by those who do join, there may be some justification in that argument.

Mr. Curran: The hon. Gentleman is now trying to shift the argument. I bring him back to the straight question. Let us imagine that a professional engineer, who is a member of his professional organisation, joins industry and chooses that his bargaining about his terms of employment should be done through his professional body. As things are, he is free to do so and he is free to say that he will not join a trade union. Does the hon. Gentleman propose to take that freedom from him now?

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman missed my argument.

Mr. Curran: On the contrary; the hon. Gentleman appreciates the argument, but he declines to meet it. He was more explicit in his interruption than he was in his speech, but his speech was a plea in support of the assertion that professional people should be compelled to join trade unions even if they did not want to join.

I believe that the House does not have the smallest right to say to professional people in industry that if they do not want to join a union Parliament will make them do so.

Mr. Ernest Fernyhough: I agree that the man who does not want to join a trade union on that basis has every right to say that nobody should compel him. However, if the firm says that he cannot join it unless he joins the superannuation scheme, would the hon. Gentleman think that that man had a right to withdraw from that superannuation scheme?

Mr. Curran: That, too, is a separate question. There may well be a case for saying that an employer should not have that right, but that is not what I am arguing; that is a separate question. I am arguing the question which is before the House, raised by this Amendment. I am interested to see how far I can get an answer as to whether the Labour Party is saying that professional men who go to work in industry are to be free as they are now to leave bargaining on their behalf to their professional organisations or whether it is saying that this freedom must be taken away and these men compelled to bargain not through their professional bodies but through a trade union.

Mr. John Mendelson: I do not recall the hon. Gentleman normally wishing to attribute to the Labour Party or to any other group something that is not so. It is uncharacteristic of him, and he knows I mean that. What is behind this—and let us take the steel works as an example—is that there have been many organisations over the years—A.S.T.M.S. is not the only one; the Steel Confederation is another—which have sought to recruit middle and junior management and felt it right to have them in the same organisation, expressing solidarity. That is what is behind the Amendment, not the general problem of whether there is a right to belong to a union. We object to people in professional bodies being placed in a special category because we fear that this will militate in future against the desire of the unions to recruit junior and middle management into their ranks. That is all there is to it.

Mr. Curran: I do not care whether it does militate against the tendency which


the hon. Gentleman regards as admirable. That is a matter of opinion. If professional people go into the steel industry and choose to join a trade union, in the sense that the hon. Gentleman is using that phrase, then by all means let them do so. I do not have the smallest objection, and neither have the Government. Suppose such people do not want to join. Are they still to have their present freedom? Apparently not. There will be freedom one way but not the other. The hon. Gentleman seems to think like Henry Ford, that they can have it in any colour they like as long as it is red. [Interruption.] It is interesting to see how unwilling the critics are to face our questions plainly and answer them plainly.
I am glad to see that the Minister will not be shaken by these cloudy and disingenuous arguments, all the more so since in the past the trade union move

ment has been willing enough and eager enough to recognise that there are distinctions between skilled and unskilled workers. If skilled workers wish to form a union of their own the trade union movement has never discouraged it. It has never said, "We cannot permit unions for skilled workers". Yet when we ask for the same principle to be applied to the new kind of worker now entering industry we are told that such a principle is monstrous. It seems that the case against this is not only muddled and disingenuous but an attempt to undermine the principles on which trade unionism has been based.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 265 Noes 227.

Division No. 460.]
AYES
[5.45 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Coombs, Derek
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Grylls, Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cormack, Patrick
Gummer, Selwyn


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Costain, A. P.
Gurden, Harold


Atkins, Humphrey
Critchley, Julian
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Awdry, Daniel
Crouch, David
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Curran, Charles
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Balniel, Lord
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Batsford, Brian
Dean, Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hastings, Stephen


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Dixon, Piers
Havers, Michael


Benyon, W.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hawkins, Paul


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hay, John


Biffen, John
Drayson, G. B.
Hayhoe, Barney


Biggs-Davison, John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hicks, Robert


Blaker, Peter
Eden, Sir John
Higgins, Terence L.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hiley, Joseph


Body, Richard
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Boscawen, Robert
Emery, Peter
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Eyre, Reginald
Holt, Miss Mary


Bowden, Andrew
Farr, John
Hordern, Peter


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fell, Anthony
Hornby, Richard


Braine, Bernard
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Bray, Ronald
Fidler, Michael
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Brewis, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hunt, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fortescue, Tim
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fowler, Norman
Iremonger, T. L.


Bryan, Paul
Fox, Marcus
James, David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jessel, Toby


Buck, Antony
Fry, Peter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Jopling, Michael


Burden, F. A.
Gardner, Edward
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gibson-Watt, David
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Carlisle, Mark
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kilfedder, James


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Channon, Paul
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kinsey, J. R.


Chapman, Sydney
Goodhart, Philip
Kirk, Peter


Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhew, Victor
Knox, David


Churchill, W. S.
Gorst, John
Lambton, Antony


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gower, Raymond
Lane, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gray, Hamish
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Clegg, Walter
Green, Alan
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Cockeram, Eric
Grieve, Percy
Le Marchant, Spencer




Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Tapsell, Peter


Longden, Gilbert
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Loveridge, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Luce, R. N.
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Peel, John
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


MacArthur, Ian
Percival, Ian
Tebbit, Norman


McCrindle, R. A.
Pink, R. Bonner
Temple, John M.


McLaren, Martin
Pounder, Rafton
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


McMaster, Stanley
Prior, Rt. An. J. M. L.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Raison, Timothy
Tilney, John


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Maddan, Martin
Redmond, Robert
Trew, Peter


Madel, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Marten, Neil
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Mather, Carol
Rees-Davies, W. R.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maude, Angus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Mawby, Ray
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Vickers, Dame Joan


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Waddington, David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Mitchelt, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rost, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Moate, Roger
Russell, Siir Ronald
Walters, Dennis


Molyneaux, James
Scott, Nicholas
Ward, Dame Irene


Money, Ernle
Scott-Hopkins, James
Weatherill, Bernard


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Sharples, Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Monro, Hector
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Montgomery, Fergus
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


More, Jasper
Simeons, Charles
Wiggin, Jerry


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Sinclair, Sir George
Wilkinson, John


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mudd, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Murton, Oscar
Soref, Harold
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Neave, Airey
Spence, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sproat, Iain
Worsley, Marcus


Normanton, Tom
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Nott, John
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Stepney)



Onslow, Cranley
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stokes, John
Mr. Keith Speed and


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Mr. Hugh Rossi.


Osborn, John
Sutcliffe, John





NOES


Albu, Austen
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Ford, Ben


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crawshaw, Richard
Forrester, John


Allen, Scholefield
Cronin, John
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Ashley, Jack
Dalyell, Tam
Garrett, W. E.


Ashton, Joe
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Gilbert, Dr. John


Atkinson, Norman
Davidson, Arthur
Golding, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Barnes, Michael
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gourlay, Harry


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Barnett, Joel
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Beaney, Alan
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Delargy, H. J.
Hamling, William


Bishop, E. S.
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Doig, Peter
Hardy, Peter


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Harper, Joseph


Booth Albert
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Driberg, Tom
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hattersley, Roy


Bradley, Tom
Dunnett, Jack
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Eadie, Alex
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Horam, John


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ellis, Tom
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
English, Michael
Huckfield, Leslie


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Evans, Fred
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Faulds, Andrew
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Cant, R. B.
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B 'ham, Ladywood)
Hunter, Adam


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Janner, Greville


Cohen, Stanley
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Conlan, Bernard
Foley, Maurice
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Foot, Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)







Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Mendelson, John
Sandelson, Neville


John, Brynmor
Millan, Bruce
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Molloy, William
Silverman, Julius


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Small, William


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Moyle, Roland
Spearing, Nigel


Judd, Frank
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spriggs, Leslie


Kaufman, Gerald
Murray, Ronald King
Stallard, A. W.


Kelley, Richard
Ogden, Eric
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Kinnock, Neil
O'Halloran, Michael
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lambie, David
O'Malley, Brian
Strang, Gavin


Latham, Arthur
Oram, Bert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lawson, George
Orme, Stanley
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Leadbitter, Ted
Oswald, Thomas
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Leonard, Dick
Paget, R. T.
Tinn, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Palmer, Arthur
Tomney, Tom


Lipton, Marcus
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles
Torney, Tom


Loughlin, Charles
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Tuck, Rachael


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Urwin, T. W.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pendry, Tom
Varley, Eric G.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pentland, Norman
Wainwright, Edwin


McBride, Neil
Perry, Ernest G.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McGuire, Michael
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wallace, George


Mackenzie, Gregor
Prescott, John
Watkins, David


Mackie, John
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Weitzman, David


Maclennan, Robert
Probert, Arthur
Whitehead, Phillip


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wiley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Marks, Kenneth
Richard, Ivor
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Marquand, David
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Marsden, F.
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caemarvon)
Woof, Robert


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Robertson, John (Paisley)



Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Meacher, Michael
Roper, John
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rose, Paul B.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

Lords Amendment: No. 92, in page 38, line 8, at end insert:

("(8) Where the Commission determine, in making a report under this section, to recommend the recognition of an organisation of workers or joint negotiation panel as sole bargaining agent for a bargaining unit, and it appears to the Commission that there are in existence more extensive bargaining arrangements which will be applicable to the employees comprised or to be comprised in that bargaining unit, the recommendation—

(a) may specify the more extensive bargaining arrangements in question, and


10
(b) may be made subject to the reservation that the organisation or panel, at any time when it is recognised as sole bargaining agent in pursuance of the recommendation, shall not have exclusive negotiating rights in respect of matters which are at that time being dealt with under


15
the specified arrangements or which are then the subject of a collective agreement negotiated under those arrangements.")

Read a Second time.

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment: In line 9, leave out from "question" to end of Amendment.—[Mr. Harold Walker]

Question put, That the Amendment be made to the Lords Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 268.

Division No. 461.]
AYES
[6.05 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Ashton, Joe
Barnett, Joel


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkinson, Norman
Beaney, Alan


Alten, Scholefield
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Barnes, Michael
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Ashley, Jack
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bidwell, Sydney




Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Moyle, Roland


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamling, William
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Murray, Ronald King


Booth, Albert
Hardy, Peter
Ogden, Eric


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Harper, Joseph
O'Halloran, Michael


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Malley, Brian


Bradley, Tom
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oram, Bert


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hattersley, Roy
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Healey, Rt. Hn, Denis
Oswald, Thomas


Buchan, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Buchanan, Richard (C'gow, Sp'bum)
Horam, John
Paget, R. T.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pendry, Tom


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pentland, Norman


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hunter, Adam
Perry, Ernest G.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cohen, Stanley
Janner, Greville
Prescott, John


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cronin, John
John, Brynmor
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Roper, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Sandelson, Neville


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davis, T. A. G. (Bromsgrove)
Kaufman, Gerald
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Delargy, H. J.
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Doig, Peter
Latham, Arthur
Small, William


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lawson, George
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spriggs, Leslie


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leonard, Dick
Stallard, A. W.


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Eadie, Alex
Lipton, Marcus
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Edelman, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Strang, Gavin


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Summershill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Ellis, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Evans, Fred
McGuire, Michael
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Faulds, Andrew
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tinn, James


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackie, John
Tomney, Frank


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Maclennan, Robert
Torney, Tom


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tuck, Raphael


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Varley, Eric G.


Foley, Maurice
Marks, Kenneth
Wainwright, Edwin


Foot, Michael
Marquand, David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ford, Ben
Marsden, F.
Wallace, George


Forrester, John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Watkins, David


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Weitzman, David


Freeson, Reginald
Meacher, Michael
Whitehead, Phillip


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Garrett, W. E.
Mendelson, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Golding, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Woof, Robert


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molloy, William



Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Barber, Rt Hn. Anthony
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Batsford, Brian
Body, Richard


Allason, James (Heme) Hempstead)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Boscawen, Robert


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bossom, Sir Clive


Atkins, Humphrey
Benyon, W.
Bowden, Andrew


Awdry, Daniel
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Biffen, John
Braine, Bernard


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Biggs-Davison, John
Bray, Ronald


Balniel, Lord
Blaker, Peter
Brewis, John







Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hawkins, Paul
Peel, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hay, John
Percival, Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hayhoe, Barney
Pink, R. Bonner


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hicks, Robert
Pounder, Rafton


Bryan, Paul
Higgins, Terence L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Hiley, Joseph
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L


Buck, Antony
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Pym, Rt Hn. Francis


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Raison, Timothy


Burden, F. A.
Holt, Miss Mary
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hordern, Peter
Redmond, Robert


Carlisle, Mark
Hornby, Richard
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hornsby Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Channon, Paul
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, David (Guildford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Churchill, W. S.
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridsdale, Julian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Iremonger, T. L.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Clegg, Walter
James, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cockeram, Eric
Jessel, Toby
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Coombs, Derek
Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)
Rost, Peter


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cormack, Patrick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott, Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Scott-Hopkins, James


Critchley, Julian
Kilfedder, James
Sharples, Richard


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Curran, Charles
Kinsey, J. R.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kirk, Peter
Simeons, Charles


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Knox, David
Sinclair, Sir George


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Lambton, Antony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dean, Paul
Lane, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Soref, Harold


Dixon, Piers
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Speed, Keith


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Le Marchant, Spencer
Spence, John


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sproat, Iain


Drayson, G. B.
Longden, Gilbert
Stanbrook, Ivor


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Loveridge, John
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Beiper)


Dykes, Hugh
Luce, R. N.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Eden, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stokes, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacArthur, Ian
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McCrindle, R. A.
Sutcliffe, John


Emery, Peter
McLaren, Martin
Tapsell, Peter


Eyre, Reginald
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Farr, John
McMaster, Stanley
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Fell, Anthony
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Fidler, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Tebbit, Norman


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maddan, Martin
Temple, John M.


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Madel, David
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marten, Neil
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Foster, Sir John
Mather, Carol
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fowler, Norman
Maude, Angus
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Fox, Marcus
Mawby, Ray
Tilney, John


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fry, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trew, Peter


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gardner, Edward
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Gibson-Watt, David
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, c.)
Moate, Roger
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Molyneaux, James
Vickers, Dame Joan


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Money, Ernle
Waddington, David


Goodhart, Philip
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Coodhew, Victor
Monro, Hector
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Gorst, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper
Wall, Patrick


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Walters, Dennis


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Ward, Dame Irene


Green, Alan
Mudd, David
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Grieve, Percy
Murton, Oscar
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Neave, Airey
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Grylls, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Gummer, Selwyn
Normanton, Tom
Wilkinson, John


Gurden, Harold
Nott, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Onslow, Cranley
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Woodnutt, Mark


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Osborn, John
Worsley, Marcus


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Haselhurst, Alan
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hastings, Stephen
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Havers, Michael

Mr. Tim Fortescue.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47

APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT FOR BALLOT AS TO RECOGNITION OF SOLE BARGAINING AGENT

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 94, in page 38, line 11, leave out "an employer" and insert "one or more employers".

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think it will be for the convenience of the House if with this Lords Amendment we consider at the same time Lords Amendments:

No. 95, in page 38, line 16, after "employer" insert:
or, if more than one, any of the employers";

No. 98, in page 39, line 3, after "employer" insert "or employers";

No. 99, in line 11, after "employer" insert "or employers";

No. 102, in line 36, leave out "an employer" and insert "one or more employers");

No. 108, in page 44, line 8, leave out "next following subsection" and insert:
following provisions of this section";

No. 110, in line 38, at end insert:
(3A) Subsections (1) to (3) of this section shall have effect in relation to an order made under section 48 of this Act in respect of two or more associated employers, but for that purpose shall have effect as if—

(a) any reference in those subsections to the employer were a reference to any of those employers;
(b) in subsections (1)(a) and (2) references to carrying on collective bargaining were references to carrying on such bargaining either alone or jointly with any other employer or employers comprised in the order;
(c) in subsection (1)(b) references to carrying on collective bargaining were references to carrying on such bargaining jointly with the other employer or employers comprised in the order.

(3B) In relation to an order which is made subject to a reservation under section 48(1A) of this Act, nothing in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall be construed as applying to collective bargaining in respect of matters which, by virtue of that reservation, are excepted from the exclusive negotiating rights of the sole bargaining agent.

Mr. Dudley Smith: These are drafting Amendments and their purpose is quite simple. Clauses 42 to 46 are drafted in terms which may concern either a single employer or a number of associated employers where "associated" is used in a sense of financial association. Clauses 47 to 53, on the other hand, are drafted in terms of only a single employer. Clearly, consistency is necessary and desirable. The Lords Amendments achieve the Government's intention of carrying right through the recommended provisions the concept of associated employers. Thus an order under Clause 48 could be directed to more than one associated employer.
The purpose of Lords Amendments 102, 108 and 110 is to carry right through the recognition provisions the concept of associated employers, and the intention here is that obligations incurred by a recognition order should, where they relate to carrying out collective bargaining in relation to the recommended bargaining unit, rest on "two or more associated employers" both jointly and singly, but in relation to the obligation when negotiated severally the intention is that it should rest on the employers jointly.
The new subsection (3B) to Clause 53 is a consequential Amendment to take account of any more extensive bargaining arrangements which may have been specified in an order by the National Industrial Relations Court.
These Lords Amendments regularise the situation, and I hope that they will be accepted even though their basis, the thinking behind the Bill, is, as we know, not always accepted by the Opposition.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: The what I might call minor Lords Amendments in this group are, as the Minister says, of a drafting nature, but it seems to the Opposition that Amendment No. 110 is one which takes unto itself the principle of these Lords Amendments. I have some difficulty with this, and I hope that the Government may give us some clarification of the significance of Lords Amendment No. 110. If some clarification is not forthcoming I think I would be bound to commend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that they seriously consider voting against this group of Lords Amendments.
My difficulty comes in two parts. The Minister defined "associated employers" in a way which was rather wider than that in the definition Clause, Clause 158(6) and I think that for the assistance of the House I should read that definition, because it is very narrow:
For the purposes of this Act any two employers are to be treated as associated if one is a company of which the other (directly or indirectly) has control, or if both are companies of which a third person (directly or indirectly) has control; and in this Act 'associated employer" shall be construed accordingly.
In a debate which we had a short time ago the Solicitor-General reaffirmed the proposition that the words "associated employer" have this technical meaning throughout the Bill, but the Minister a moment ago spoke about two companies being financially associated. He will appreciate, I am sure, that that is a different conception. Companies can be financially associated in a number of ways and need not necessarily be associated in the way described in Clause 158(6). They can be financially associated if one company holds a percentage of shares in the other without control, or they can be financially associated, obviously, by being involved in a common enterprise of some kind.
Therefore, the first question which I put to the Government is, in what sense are the words "associated employer" used here? Is it the sense which the hon. Gentleman has just stated—financial associations of some kind—or the narrow and strict sense of Clause 158(6)?
Depending upon the answer to that, there arises the second difficulty, which is the main ground of difficulty for the Opposition. It is not clear, whatever "associated employers" means, why this distinction should be drawn between collective bargaining on a joint and several basis, if I may use that terminology. Subsection (3A) of Amendment 110 talks about
… bargaining either alone or jointly with any other employer or employers comprised in the order".
If, for the purposes of subsections (1)(a) and (2) of Clause 53, one is to get various employers responsible alone or jointly for carrying out what is required of them, if it is justified there why is it not equally justified in subsection (1)(b)? The positive job to carry on as a joint negotiation

with a sole bargaining agent is important, but it is just as important that the negative side should be carried out properly as well. If one does not impose in subparagraph (c) the same kind of duty that one imposes in subparagraph (b) one is, when considering the positive responsibilities under subparagraph (b), allowing an employer to say, "I will jointly bargain with the other employers, but I have no responsibility because they will not play." Given that attitude, nothing will be done. The logic of this is far from clear.

Mr. Kennelh Lewis: This is an interesting legal argument, but in practical terms no employer could possibly take the attitude which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just described, since he or one or other of the employers would be in immediate trouble. They simply would not be able to get anything done on the labour relations side.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I do not want to take up time. The point I am making has both a legal and a common sense content. I prefer to take my stand basically on the common sense point. If the employer is getting legal advice on his duties and responsibilities and he is told that this is a sole bargaining right, that is one thing, but if he is told that this is a joint bargaining right, that is quite another. Legally, the point is unanswerable and I suggest that it is also unanswerable from the common sense point of view. One needs to know what "associated employers" means. Does it mean the narrow definition in Clause 158(6) or is it in the broad concept which the hon. Gentleman gave? From the common sense point of view, one may assume that the obligation with regard to negative duties is of lesser quality than the obligation with regard to positive duties.

The Solicitor-General: The term "associated employers" is defined in the Bill. "Financially associated" is a colloquialism which no doubt falls below the very high forensic standards of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) but it accurately fulfils the definition as set out. The intention of these provisions is again to be divided into two halves. The provisions in Clause 53(1)(a) and (2) make it


an unfair practice for the employer or associated employers concerned to carry on bargaining outside the recommended structure. In that context, the intention is, whether they do it jointly or severally, that if either one of them by himself or all of them together begin bargaining with a union other than the recognised union, that should be unfair; neither could bargain either severally or jointly.
On the other hand, the provisions in relation to Clause 53(1)(b) are in relation to the obligation of the employer to bargain seriously with the recognised union. If the C.I.R. has analysed the situation and has concluded that, in relation to a group of associated employers—all of them as a group—union X is entitled to recognition and that the group should bargain with it, that obligation is expressed as being a joint one and the employers as a group are told, "You must recognise as a group union X and must bargain as a group with it." That obligation has to be discharged jointly. It is the positive obligation which must be discharged by all the employers together in respect of the recommendation of the C.I.R. and it would destroy or fragment the bargaining structure recommended by the C.I.R. if the employers could bargain in penny packets in this context.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: The hon. and learned Gentleman has put the point very clearly, and I understand it. When one comes to what he has called the "positive obligation"—I tried to use the terms "positive "and" negative" obligations—supposng one of a group of employers says, "I cannot fulfil my positive obligation because one other member of the group will not." Is there no obligation at all on him then? It seems to me that there is not.

The Solicitor-General: The employers are obliged to act jointly. The bargaining structure was made on the recommendation that the employers should act jointly. If one of the joint employers declined for some reason to bargain within the group, he would not be fulfilling his positive obligation to bargain. It might be that the Commission, on re-examination, would conclude that a different structure should be recommended.
A structure with the positive obligation is closely parallel to the provision in

Clauses 6 to 18 onwards of the Labour Government's Bill, where bargaining operations could be specified in relation to an employer or group of employers in regard to matters national, local or regional. In that situation, the Secretary of State would have made an Order requiring bargaining to be undertaken, and if such bargaining had turned out to be ineffective for the kind of reason which the hon. and learned Gentleman now suggests, one would have had to go back and get an amending order from the Secretary of State. One can visualise the breaking down of a recommended bargaining structure in the operation of a positive obligation and I am certain that one would be able to see the reason why the obligation is not being discharged.
I hope that I have sufficiently clearly explained, in the context of the philosophy of the Bill, the contrast between positive and negative obligations and why Clause 53(1)(a) and (2) are separated from Clause 53(1)(b).

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 96, in page 38, line 23, leave out "by" and insert:
in respect of a recommendation relating to".

6.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I understand that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords Amendment No. 97, in line 25, leave out "by" and insert:
in respect of a recommendation relating to".
Under these provisions, an investigation can be made into the bargaining situation by the C.I.R. so as to come up with a solution which recommends an unregistered organisation as the sole bargaining agent, but no application can be made for a statutory enforcement of that set of bargaining rights and obligations in respect of an unregistered organisation unless and until it has become registered.
The Bill was amended when last in this House to allow the process of recommendation to go as far as the making of the recommendation of the C.I.R. in respect of an unregistered organisation but the other part of the pattern was not completely included. The provisions


were amended in this House to provide that if at the time when the organisation applied for recognition rights to be enforced it had become registered, then it could gain advantage of an enforceable order, but they were not so amended to impose the same requirement on the unregistered organisation at the time if the employers made application in respect of it.
Hon. Members opposite may agree or disagree with the concept that the ultimate right to have bargaining rights recognised and enforced should be confined to a registered organisation, but this particular pair of Amendments is necessary to ensure the same principle applies whether the application of enforceability for a recognition order is made by the organisation or by an employer. It is on that basis of consistency that I commend these Amendments to the House.

Mr. Rose: It is right that these Amendments tidy, and indeed tighten, the situation, after what can only be described as the slipshod drafting with which we have become familiar as this Bill has been forced through the various stages in this House under great pressure.

The Clause, as the Solicitor-General tried to indicate, though he rather mystified me at one point, prevented an organisation of workers from making an application as a sole bargaining agent, but allowed for an employer or third party to do so on behalf of an unregistered organisation.

We abhor the discrimination against unions which choose not to register. It is a constant theme of this legislation that puts unregistered unions in the position in which trade unions found themselves almost a century ago. The Amendments show that the net is being drawn ever more tightly. Subsection (2) should have gone out of the window altogether. Indeed, such an attempt was made in the other place on 18th May when the noble Lord, Lord Champion, moved an Amendment. The noble Lord said:

Once again we are calling attention to the fact that the Government by this subsection are putting on the screw to force organisations of workers to register.

He said that the Amendment highlighted the point that applications could not be made to the court under that subsection except by a registered trade union.

We appeal to the Government, as did the noble Lord, to rethink this question of unregistered trade unions because of the discrimination imported into the Bill. In the other place Lord Belstead, replying to Lord Champion's Amendment, gave the game away when he said:
The right to apply for a ballot on the C.I.R. recommendation under Clause 46, which results in an enforceable recognition order in the event of a majority vote in favour, is one substantial new right. We cannot accept that it should be available to an organisation of workers …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th May, 1971; Vol. 319, c. 353–4.]
What the Government are trying to do in this debate is to force unions to register whether they want to or not. It is not right for the Government to say that the unions have a choice. They are being left with no choice because of the obligation that is being laid upon them and the risk and disadvantage involved if they do not register.

The Government are storing up a bitterness which will rebound upon them. They have not begun to understand the extent of that bitterness. There is a subdued and seething anger in the trade union movement at present which, at every turn of the screw, runs from the Upper Clyde down to the Thames. This is one more turn of the screw and will make it more likely that eventually the floodgates will burst. The Government may go on turning the screw and we shall vote against it, but later the Government will reap the whirlwind in a far more unpleasant way.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment—

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 226.

Division No. 462.]
AYES
[6.36 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Benyon, W.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Balniel, Lord
Berry, Hn. Anthony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Biffen, John


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Batsford, Brian
Biggs-Davison, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Blaker, Peter


Awdry, Daniel
Bell, Ronald
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Body, Richard




Boscawen, Robert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Peel, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Haselhurst, Alan
Percival, Ian


Bowden, Andrew
Hastings, Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Havers, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


Braine, Bernard
Hay, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bray, Ronald
Hayhoe, Barney
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Brewis, John
Hicks, Robert
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Higgins, Terence L.
Raison, Timothy


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hiley, Joseph
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Redmond, Robert


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bryan, Paul
Holt, Miss Mary
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Hordern, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Buck, Antony
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bullus, Sir Eric
Howe, Hon. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Burden, F. A.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Channon, Paul
Iremonger, T. L.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Chapman, Sydney
James, David
Rost, Peter


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jessel, Toby
Russell, Sir Ronald


Churchill, W. S.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Scott, Nicholas


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Jopling, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sharples, Richard


Clegg, Walter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Cockeram, Eric
Kilfedder, James
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Coombs, Derek
King, Eveleyn (Dorset, S.)
Simeons, Charles


Cormack, Patrick
Kinsey, J. R.
Sinclair, Sir George


Costain, A. P.
Kirk, Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.


Critchley, Julian
Knox, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Crouch, David
Lambton, Antony
Soref, Harold


Curran, Charles
Lane, David
Spence, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sproat, Iain


d'Avigrtor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dean, Paul
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Dixon, Piers
Longden, Gilbert
Stokes, John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Loveridge, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Luce, R. N.
Sutcliffe, John


Drayson, G. B.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Tapsell, Peter


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dykes, Hugh
McCrindle, R. A.
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Eden, Sir John
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Eyre, Reginald
McMaster, Stanley
Tebbit, Norman


Farr, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Temple, John M.


Fell, Anthony
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fidler, Michael
Maddan, Martin
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Madel, David
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Marten, Neil
Tilney, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mather, Carol
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fortescue, Tim
Maude, Angus
Trew, Peter


Foster, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fowler, Norman
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Fox, Marcus
Meyer, Sir Anthony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Fry, Peter
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Gardner, Edward
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Waddington, David


Gibson-Watt, David
Moate, Roger
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Money, Ernle
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Monro, Hector
Wall, Patrick


Coodhart, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus
Wallers, Dennis


Goodhew, Victor
More, Jasper
Ward, Dame Irene


Gorst, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Weatherill, Bernard


Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mudd, David
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gray, Hamish
Murton, Oscar
Wiggin, Jerry


Green, Alan
Neave, Airey
Wilkinson, John


Grieve, Percy
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Normanton, Tom
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Nott, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Grylls, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Woodnutt, Mark


Gummer, Selwyn
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Worsley, Marcus


Gurden, Harold
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Osborn, John



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Mr. Keith Speed.


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)








NOES


Albu, Austen
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Freeson, Reginald
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Allen, Scholefield
Calpern, Sir Myer
Molloy, William


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Garrett, W. E.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Armstrong, Ernest
Gilbert, Dr. John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Ashley, Jack
Golding, John
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Ashton, Joe
Gordon Walker Rt. Hn. P. C.
Moyle, Roland


Atkinson, Norman
Gourlay, Harry
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Murray, Ronald King


Barnes, Michael
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Ogden, Eric


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
O'Halloran, Michael


Barnett, Joel
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Malley, Brian


Beaney, Alan
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Oram, Bert


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Orme, Stanley


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hardy, Peter
Oswald, Thomas


Bidwell, Sydney
Harper, Joseph
Paget, R. T.


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Palmer, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hattersley, Roy
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Booth, Albert
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Horam, John
Pendry, Tom


Bradley, Tom
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Perry, Ernest G.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Prescott, John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, J. T. (westhoughton)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hunter, Adam
Probert, Arthur


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cant, R. B.
Janner, Greville
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roper, John


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rose, Paul B.


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Sandelson, Neville


Cronin, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davidson, Arthur
Judd, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kaufman, Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Small, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kinnock, Neil
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lambie, David
Spearing, Nigel


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Latham, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lawson, George
Stallard, A. W.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Leadbitter, Ted
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leonard, Dick
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Strang, Gavin


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lipton, Marcus
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Driberg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Thomas, Geoffrey (Abertillery)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Tinn, James


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Tomney, Frank


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Torney, Tom


Edelman, Maurice
McGuire, Michael
Tuck, Raphael


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Varley, Eric G.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackie, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Ellis, Tom
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


English, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wallace, George


Evans, Fred
McNamara, J. Kevin
Watkins, David


Faulds, Andrew
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Whitehead, Phillip


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Marks, Kenneth
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Marquand, David
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marsden, F.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Foley, Maurice
Meacher, Michael
Woof, Robert


Foot, Michael
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert



Ford, Ben
Mendelson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Forrester, John
Millan, Bruce
Mr. Donald Coleman and



Miller, Dr. M. S.
Mr. William Hamling.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 49

APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT WITH A VIEW TO WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION.

Lords Amendment: No. 101, in page 39, line 33, leave out "a trade union" and insert, "an organisation of workers".

6.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the said Amendment.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is would be for the convenience of the House to take at the same time two further Lords Amendments:

No. 103, in page 30, line 41, leave out "trade union" and insert, "organisation of workers".

No. 104, in page 40, line 6, leave out "trade union" and insert, "organisation of workers".

Mr. Speaker: Yes, if the House so wishes.

The Solicitor-General: Hon. Members will see that the three Amendments are identical as a matter of words. Clause 49, to which they are directed, allows the recognised position of a union to be challenged by an agreed percentage of the employees in the bargaining unit. At present, an application for withdrawal of recognition of sole bargaining agent status can be made only in respect of a trade union, the expression "a trade union" appearing twice in subsection (1) and once in subsection (2).
These three Amendments will replace the expression "trade union" by the expression "organisation of workers". They have two effects, one, from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, benevolent, and the other—though I hesitate to say it—from their point of view malevolent.
The benevolent effect is this. As the Clause now stands, it would not be possible for a group of workers or anyone else to challenge the recognised bargaining rights of a house union. If the only organisation which can be challenged is a registered trade union, and if recognition is accorded to an unregistered, non-independent, craven and submissive house union, as the hon. Member for Salford,

West (Mr. Orme) describes it, the position of that house union, embraced, as the saying goes, in a sweetheart deal with the employer, could not be challenged under the Clause as it stands. The benevolent effect of the Amendment is to allow a registered union or an aggrieved minority to challenge the position of that unregistered house union.
I come now to what I have called the malevolent effect, from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, though it is only with the greatest hesitation that I acknowledge the "mal" at the beginning of that word, because it is only very mildly malevolent. The opportunity to challenge an unregistered organisation should be accorded to the disaffected minority. According to the foundations of the Government's proposals here, it would not be right if it were easier to withdraw recognition from a registered organisation than from an unregistered organisation. So the effect of the second part of this proposal is that either the one-fifth or the two-fifths—whichever be the situation—of the workers involved would be able to secure a hearing of their case if they were challenging either a house union or an unregistered union in just the same way as they would be able to challenge the position of a registered union under the Clause as it stood when it left this House.

Mr. John Fraser: If I may deal with the malevolent aspects first, I will say that the Solicitor-General is nothing if not thorough. He resembles less, perhaps, the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords than the Lord Chancellor in the Gilbert and Sullivan opera who said "I've got them on the list and none of them be missed". In this case, the hon. and learned Gentleman is not missing an organisation of workers.
The organisation of workers cannot apply to the Court in the first place for recognition because the preceding Clause of the Bill states that it can obtain recognition only if it is a registered trade union and that if it ceases to be a registered trade union, the recognition order ceases to have effect. Therefore, the point in allowing an application to be made to the Court to end a recognition agreement can arise only in circumstances where the organisation of workers, despite the assistance of the Court, has obtained


recognition from the employer, the recognition having been obtained without having to go through the legal procedures. Nevertheless, lest one small organisation of workers escapes, this part is being amended.
If I may comment on the benevolent aspect of the Lords Amendments to which the Solicitor-General referred, throughout the Committee stage we tried to alter the definitions in the Bill so that an organisation of workers would never by definition be a house union. We attempted from time to time to put in the word "independent". Had those Amendments been accepted, the so-called benevolent aspects of these Lords Amendments would not be necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 50

ACTION IN PURSUANCE OF APPLICATION UNDER S. 49

Lords Amendment: No. 105, in page 40, line 32, leave out subsections (3) to (7) and insert:
("(3) If, before that time expires, a settlement of the matters to which the application relates has been reached, the Commission shall report that fact to the Industrial Court, indicating the nature of the settlement.
(4) If, when that time expires, no such settle ment has been reached and the application has not been withdrawn, the Industrial Court, with a view to testing the grounds of the applica tion by taking one or more ballots, shall request the Commission to consider whether—

(a) there should be one ballot, extending to all employees for the time being comprised in the bargaining unit to which the application relates, or
(b) for the purpose of taking ballots that bargaining unit should be divided into two or more sections, and in the case of each section a separate ballot should be taken of all the employees for the time being comprised in that section.

(5) For the purpose of determining the question specified in subsection (4) of this section the Commission shall consider the extent to which different descriptions of employees comprised in the bargaining unit have interests in common, having regard in particular, in relation to each such description of employees, to—

(a) the nature of the work which they are employed to do, and
(b) their training, experience and professional or other qualifications.



(6) In relation to the ballot, or (if more than one) each of the ballots, to be taken as mentioned in subsection (4) of this section the Commission shall determine whether it is to be taken by the Commission or is to be taken under the supervision of the Commission by some other body, and in either case what arrangements would best secure that the ballot will be properly conducted and that the voting in the ballot will be kept secret; and the Commission shall thereupon arrange for one or more ballots to be taken in accordance with their conclusions under subsections (4) and (5) of this section and under this subsection.
(7) The question on which any ballot under this section is to be taken—

(a) where it extends to all employees for the time being comprised in the bargaining unit to which the application relates, shall be whether the organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel specified in the application should continue to be recognised as sole bargaining agent for that bargaining unit;
(b) where it is limited to a particular section of that bargaining unit, shall be whether that section should continue to be included in a bargaining unit for which that organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel is so recognised.

(8) After one or more ballots have been taken under this section in pursuance of an application under section 47 of this Act, the Commission shall report the results of the ballot or ballots to the Industrial Court, to the applicant, and to every employer, organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel specified in that application.")

Mr. R. Carr: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I understand that it might be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the following three Lords Amendments:

No. 106, in Clause 51, page 41, line 22, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:
("() Where a ballot under section 50 of this Act has been taken on the question specified in subsection (7)(a) of that section, and the result of the ballot, as reported by the Commission to the Industrial Court, is that a majority of the employees voting in the ballot voted against the continuance of the organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel as sole bargaining agent for the bargaining unit, the Industrial Court shall make an order directing the employer or employers—

(a) to cease to recognise the organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel as sole bargaining agent for the bargaining unit, and
(b) not to accord such recognition to it at any time during the period of two years beginning with the date on which the result of the ballot was reported by the Commission to the Industrial Court.



() Where such a ballot, limited to a section of a bargaining unit, has been taken on the question specified in subsection (7)(b) of section 50 of this Act, and the result of the ballot, as reported by the Commission to the Industrial Court, is that a majority of the employees voting in the ballot voted against that section continuing to be included in the bargaining unit for which the organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel is recognised as sole bargaining agent, the Industrial Court shall make an order directing the employer or employers—

(a) to cease to recognise the organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel as sole bargaining agent for that section of the bargaining unit, and
(b) not to accord such recognition to it at any time during the period of two years beginning with the date on which the result of the ballot was reported by the Commission to the Industrial Court.")

No. 256, in page 111, line 36, at end insert new Clause K (Review of ballot taken under Part II or Part III).

No. 311, in Schedule 3, page 133, line 14, at end insert:
(" . In so far as the rules make provision for the purposes of section (Review of ballot taken under Part II or Part III) of this Act, they shall include provision—

(a) as to the circumstances in which, and the parties by whom, an application can be made to the Industrial Court for an order under that section;
(b) as to any circumstances in which the Industrial Court is to be empowered to make such an order without any such application; and
(c) as to the persons who are to be, or may be made, parties to any proceedings before the Industrial Court in which (whether in pursuance of an application or otherwise) the Court considers the making of such an order.")

The purpose of Lords Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 is twofold. First, we wish to clarify the procedure which has to be followed by the National Industrial Relations Court and the Commission on Industrial Relations in Clause 50. Secondly, we want to make further provision for the safeguarding of minority interests when ballots are taken on withdrawal of recognition.

Perhaps I might say first a few words about the necessity for clarifying the procedure in Clause 50. For a number of reasons, it did not seem to us that the procedure at present laid down was very clear or as consistent as we would like. In particular, it did not make it clear that when the C.I.R. decided that the ballot should be limited to a certain section of the bargaining unit, each section

of that unit should be separately balloted. This seems to us obviously to be desirable. If only one section of the bargaining unit were balloted, the position of the bargaining agent might be in doubt in the remaining part of the bargaining unit which had not been balloted. It therefore seemed to us that by far the best course would be to require, as the Amendments do, that the ballot should be taken in all parts of the unit so that the position of the bargaining agent was left in no doubt in any part of the unit.

The reason why we have provision in Clause 50 for ballots to be held in part of the bargaining unit is to enable the C.I.R. to hold a ballot of a dissident minority group within the bargaining unit which feels that it should not remain within that unit. In such a hypothetical case, the remainder of the bargaining unit could probably be quite satisfied with the performance of the established bargaining agent. It seems to us right that the remainder, too, should be balloted so that their position is left in no doubt. This means, however, that the question on which the ballot should be taken ought not to be whether the union should cease to be the bargaining agent, as Clause 50 at present provides, but rather whether the union should continue to be the bargaining agent for that unit. That is the main clarification in this respect which is made by these Amendments.

The second purpose of the Amendments is to write into Clause 50 special safeguards for minorities. This point has been of some concern, as was the matter which we discussed a few Amendments ago. I think that there is now no doubt that the new subsection (5) will go a good way towards meeting any genuine fears of those minorities who felt that they might not receive proper treatment under these provisions.

Those are the reasons for Lords Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 but perhaps I might say a final word about them. They may appear to be more extensive than they are. We could have achieved these purposes by a string of small Amendments to the existing subsections but we thought it better to introduce new subsections rather than a long string of smaller Amendments. We hope that at


least this makes them easier to see and understand.

Lords Amendment No. 256 is a new Clause which comes in after Clause 15, and Lords Amendment No. 311 is an Amendment to Schedule 3. They arise because, on a number of occasions in Committee in another place, it was pointed out by Opposition spokesmen, notably by Lord Gardiner, that the provisions of the Bill which required ballots to be conducted by the C.I.R. or under the supervision of the C.I.R. did not afford any opportunity for appeal against a reported result of a ballot, nor did they give the Industrial Court any other option than to accept the result as reported even though there might be circumstances in which it was evident that a mistake had been made in the conduct or in the reporting of a ballot. It was, therefore, urged that there should be statutory procedure for rectifying mistakes made by the C.I.R. or by any other body conducting a ballot under the supervision of the C.I.R.

The Lord Chancellor in another place accepted the argument that the prerogative writ procedure would not enable a simple error of fact to be corrected by way of an order of the Divisional Court and he accepted that it would be desirable to enable mistakes made in the conduct of statutory ballots to be challenged in the Industrial Court. The Amendments are intended to deal with that situation. I hope that the House will feel that it is right to provide this provision for supervision and appeal against ballots which may be thought to be wrong in some way or other.

The proposed Amendments will only apply, however, to ballots under the provisions of Part II and Part III of the Bill. Thus, it is not intended that the new provisions should apply in respect of strike ballots in emergency circumstances under Clause 138. So there will be no provision for any party to complain to the Industrial Court of a mistake made in the conduct of a strike ballot, nor, as a result, can a court order a fresh ballot. Superficially this looked wrong, and I should like to explain, I hope satisfactorily, why we are taking this course.

7.0 p.m.

We have taken this course because of the special circumstances surrounding an emergency strike ballot and the overriding

purpose of such a ballot. We have made it plain that the ballot is intended purely to assess the strength of support for the industrial action taken, or to be taken, by allowing the workers concerned to express their wishes. When the result of the ballot is reported to the court, the order is effectively discharged. Since the power to take further action, whether by the court or by the parties concerned, does not in any way depend on the result of a ballot, and the court has no further statutory powers under the strike ballot provisions, we did not think that it was necessary or even right to give the court the same statutory powers to review a ballot as in the cases about which I spoke earlier where the result of the ballot imposed a legal obligation upon one or more of the parties. There is this big distinction between these ballots. One is an opinion-testing procedure with no liability flowing from it; the other is on the substance from which obligations and liabilities might flow.

Furthermore, in order to protect the interests of the parties, especially those of the workers concerned, and to remove any possibility of abuse of the strike ballot provisions, Clause 143(7) makes it plain that after the principal order under Clause 138 takes effect, the court shall not entertain any application relating to the same industrial dispute or any other industrial dispute which appears to fall within the scope of the original one. Nor, I should stress, does the court have any power to extend the period within which the result of the ballot must be reported. This means that the period in which people are restrained from organising a strike while the ballot takes place can similarly not be extended. An important factor to take into account is the need, when there is a strike ballot, for speed and for there to be no possibility of the period being capable of extension. Therefore, we saw no reason for giving the court power to quash a ballot when there are no powers available to it to continue restraint on organising industrial action.

I think that is all that I need say at this stage in explanation of the purposes of these Amendments. However, with the permission of the House, I shall do my best to answer any questions which may be raised during the debate.

Mr. Orme: The Secretary of State has explained how ballots will or will not be conducted in an agency or sole bargaining unit situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) quoted from Gilbert and Sullivan when discussing a previous Amendment. When I was in industry I worked at one time with a shop steward who when I used the term "Gilbertian"—I do not know whether he understood what I meant—always used to say when things got chaotic, "Send for Gilbert and Sullivan".
When we try to reduce industrial relations, the question of agency shop and recognition of a sole bargaining agent, to a ballot form within industry, we begin to realise how complicated the situation will become. This is a completely new situation. We have had no information. Some of my noble Friends in another place asked how these ballots would be conducted, who would be responsible within the plants for conducting them, how they would be counted, and what procedure would be used. We have received no satisfactory answer from the Government.
We move to a unique situation when we come to Amendments Nos. 256 and 311. My noble Friend Lord Gardiner, with his legal knowledge and feeling of justice, asked in the other place whether there should be some check on these undefined procedures which are laid down in the Bill.
I should like to ask a specific question arising from new Clause K. Subsection (2), provides:
If, in accordance with Industrial Court rules made for the purposes of this section, the Industrial Court finds, in the case of a ballot for which this section applies, that the report made to the Court by the Commission as to the result of the ballot was incorrect, and that it would be just and equitable in the circumstances to amend the report so as to rectify the error without requiring a further ballot to be taken.
On what precedent is this situation created whereby somebody can alter a ballot which has taken place? Will this body have to report on the altered ballot? Will the participants in the ballot have a right of access to find out who has altered it and why it has been altered?
I do not think that in the British Constitution there is anything comparable

with that subsection which gives the body to which the ballot has been referred the right contained in that subsection. Paragraph (a) provides:
the Court may make an order amending the report accordingly, and
(b) where such an order has been made, the report shall have effect for the purposes of this Act as if it had been made as amended by the order.
The Secretary of State has an obligation to tell the House exactly what is meant by this and what the precedents are.
I note that Lord Gardiner, who had asked for some form of longstop, was unfortunately not present in the other place when Lord Drumalbyn brought this proposal forward. There was an exceedingly short debate on it in the other place. This is a cardinal point. I do not know what my lawyer Friends feel about the legal aspects, but it seems an extremely ominous proposal.
We are opposed to the Industrial Court in its entirety because of the legalistic powers and functions which it will be given. We are certainly opposed to the idea that it should have these overriding powers. It is interesting to note that it will only deal with Parts II and III of the Bill; it will not deal with strike ballots of a national character. We wonder about the accuracy of these proposals in this regard. However, we are not asking for these long-stop proposals; we are opposed to ballots in their entirety.

Amendment No. 311 to Schedule 3 underwrites the main purpose of Amendment No. 256. I think that we are entitled to a reply from the Minister on the whole question of the operation of these ballots.

Taking this a stage further, I think that to give the Industrial Court the right to alter a ballot is to provide for direct interference by the State.

Mr. R. Carr: It is not the State.

Mr. Orme: The Minister says that it is not the State, but under the Bill the right hon. Gentleman, as Secretary of State, maintains a large amount of political power by which, under various Clauses, he can give orders and directions—

Mr. Carr: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. I have no power to give orders to the Court. The Court is the


equivalent of a High Court. It is not under the thumb of any Minister. It is because we believe it right that these matters are better argued in public, in a court, than behind closed doors in the Ministry, which is political and controlled by the State, that we are proposing, amongst other things, this kind of procedure.

Mr. Orme: All I can say is that the Minister has power to direct the attention of the Court to certain practices. However the right hon. Gentleman puts it, this is seen in the trade union movement as a political structure. One sees the Industrial Court coming into collective bargaining with regard to the setting up of an agency shop and, in particular, deciding who is the sole bargaining agent within an establishment. For those reasons, the Opposition hope that the Minister will answer the points that have been put to him.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: When one looks at subsection (2) of the proposed new Clause one sees there a serious defect. This is not the kind of long-stop for which Lord Gardiner was asking. Something else has been put in its place, no doubt through inadvertence rather than malevolence.
Let me put it this way. The error to be corrected is either material, or it is immaterial. If it is immaterial, there is no need for this machinery. If it is material, it can relate to only one thing, and that is the result of the ballot. If the Commission's report is so misguided that it says there is a majority for, when it should have been there is a majority against, it is almost inconceivable that this machinery will be required. If there is anything else, it is difficult to see how it will be material. I should like the Government's reaction to that.

Mr. Adam Butler: The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is worried that the Court may change the result of a ballot. As I read the Clause, it is not to the effect at all, but relates to the report on the result of a ballot. Perhaps I may use an example from our debate a few days ago. It was my impression that the result of the miners' ballot on the strike vote was 57 per cent. If I had been in the position of the Commission, I should have reported that to the Court, but it transpired later that the correct

figure was 55 per cent. It would have been pointless to hold a second ballot for the sake of correcting the inaccuracy of my report. That is how I read the Clause, and I take it to be correct.
If strike ballots are to be left out of the new Clause in respect of all appeals to the Industrial Court, may we be told what the mechanics are for dealing with any alleged irregularities in the conduct of emergency strike ballots?

7.15 p.m.

Mr. R. Carr: With the permission of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Ore) said that nobody knew how the ballots were to be conducted. They are a new thing, and one has to start somewhere, at some time. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is opposed to all ballots in this connection, and I shall come to that in a moment. But if one is not opposed to the possibility of ballots in circumstances of this kind, one has to make a start at some time.
Until the C.I.R. starts to operate, and to study the matter, it is not possible to lay down in legislation, or to explain in advance, how this will be done. This is one of the difficult tasks which the C.I.R. has ahead of it. We shall have to watch very carefully how it does this job. It will have to develop its techniques and expertise on this issue. When something has never been done before, one cannot easily say in advance exactly how it is to be done. But if one says that that is a debarring factor, one never starts on anything new.
The hon. Gentleman complained about the complexity of these proposals. That is something which often crops up. If we are honest, we will admit that all law is complicated when one looks at it. Even if I take the point, as I do, about the previous Administration's Bill, that it was never debated, and never amended, and therefore we cannot say that we saw the Bill in its final form, I still say that if one wants to see a complicated Bill, complicated beyond any chance of being simplified by Amendment, one has only to look at the right hon. Lady's Bill that was published just before the General Election last year. As my hon. and learned Friend said during a recent debate, it took twice the number of


Clauses to deal with unfair dismissal as the present Bill takes.
We have to accept that when dealing with a matter of this kind, or with almost any matter, the law relating to it, studied in a vacuum, always seems extremely complicated, and even when studied in practice will be complicated, but that is because it has to be fairly precise and, as far as possible, cope with all the possibilities that one can foresee.
The main point that has been raised arises on subsections (2) and (3) of the new Clause, where the Court is given power to rectify a mistake without taking a new ballot. If one says it like that, it sounds appalling, but if one reads the whole of subsections (2) and (3) the whole thing comes into somewhat clearer focus and a rather different perspective.
All that subsection (2) says is that where the Court decides that it would be just and equitable in the circumstances to amend the report so as to rectify the error without requiring a further ballot to be taken it can do so. The circumstance envisaged is that there is a genuine miscount and all parties are agreed that that is so, because for example a ballot box had been left out and was subsequently found. In those circumstances it seems totally unnecessary to go through the whole procedure again, but the parties concerned will have full rights to go before the Court, and if they do not think that what was done was equitable, and that another ballot ought to be taken, that argument can be made before the Court.
The next subsection provides that where the Court takes a different view from that taken in the circumstances to which I have just referred it has power to quash the ballot and any decisions arising out of it, and then one has to start again. I should have thought that if, in an industrial situation, all parties were satisfied, and the Court was satisfied, that the error was of the order that I have agreed, it would be sensible for the Court to take that action. We must remember that this Court has the status of a High Court. It is not some minor body. If we cannot in this country trust a body of this kind to decide whether, in the circumstances, something is just and equitable, and that the error is not one which requires a new ballot, I do not think that

we shall ever be able to trust anybody on anything.

Mr. Orme: One thing that one learns about parliamentary drafting is that it is not what the Minister says that counts. What counts is what is in the Bill. What matters is how the Court will interpret the words in this Measure when it becomes an Act. That is what is important, not the words of the Minister, myself or anybody else. Those words, taken on their own, constitute a changed constitutional situation, as I see it.

Mr. Carr: Of course, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that no Minister from this Dispatch Box can say how a court under our constitution will interpret an Act. We can only declare our intentions and try to assure the House that we think we have got words which will put our intentions into practice. If the courts interpret an Act contrary to Parliament's intentions, that, I understand, is one of the most frequent reasons why Parliament sometimes enacts amending legislation.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is no constitutional precedent for this kind of juidcial interference in a democratic vote?

Mr. Carr: That may be true. We are starting a new type of procedure and it is of a different order of magnitude from that of elections of ourselves to this House and therefore the formation of the Government of this country.
The ballot is going to be conducted under the auspices of the C.I.R., and not by the employer or the union or anybody associated with the dispute. One should remember that. In addition, the Court has to look at complaints about the ballot having been wrong for some reason. If, and only if, the Court, having heard the case, believes that it would be just and equitable in the circumstances to amend the report without ordering a new ballot, it is given power to do so.
I should have thought that when we are dealing, as we are, with circumstances probably involving an industrial dispute, as much speed as we can achieve is necessary. This seems a sensible provision to make in a case where, for example, all the parties agree that the ballot is wrong because there has been a miscount arising from the temporary loss of a ballot


box I would have thought this was not a bad precedent to set in this very well defined field, particularly as subsection (3) makes it very clear that if the Industrial Court is not satisfied that it would be just and equitable to take into account a genuine mistake and to record it without causing everybody the trouble of having a new ballot, the Court has power to quash the ballot and start again. As I say, I think this is a reasonable provision. But the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) is right; I think this is a precedent and it is, therefore, a matter about which obviously there can be differences of opinion.
Perhaps I may say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler). As I explained originally, the strike ballot in an emergency situation is of a different order—a minor order in one sense—because no obligations or duties or liabilities flow from that ballot. Therefore, while we want these ballots to be accurate, it is not the same as other ballots from which liabilities and obligations flow.

Mr. Bidwell: We understand the Minister's differentiation between the strike ballot and the other form of ballot. I assume that financial liability would not arise in the second place but that financial liability of some kind would arise in the first place. Are the Government handicapped by the absence of the C.I.R. and by their consequent inability to take soundings from it?

Mr. Carr: I am not quite sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about financial liability.

Mr. Bidwell: I mean in the sense that one pays for accounting clerks in the conduct of ballots at elections. How are these ballots to be conducted and at whose expense?

Mr. Carr: The cost of the C.I.R. and of its work, including the conduct of ballots, will fall on public funds. The parties will not be involved in any way.
So far as the strike ballot is concerned, I am advised that in theory the High Court could entertain an application for an order to quash the result of one ballot and order another one. I am told that that is the theoretical position. I am also advised that since no legal result

flows from a strike ballot, it is at least possible, if not probable, that the High Court might in practice decline to issue such an order. So I have to say to my hon. Friend that I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that I have a very satisfactory answer to his question.
We have to decide at any given moment on the number of safeguards that we put into a particular procedure, and we felt it was right to put the safeguards, the appeals and so forth, into this ballot procedure but we did not think it was right to do so in the case where no legal liabilities flow. In any case, in practical terms, the idea of a strike ballot is to provide an opportunity for workers to express their opinion in a serious national situation where there is evidence of different views among the workers affected in the dispute. If that opinion is challenged, it will carry less authority. It is the natural authority which a ballot of this kind will or will not carry which will have its influence. But it will not commit anybody to any liability or any action. To imagine that in an industrial dispute it would be practicable or helpful to say "Stop" and have it all over again, even if the ballot were suspect in any way, would be counter-productive rather than productive.

Mr. Adam Butler: Do I understand that in the case of alleged serious misconduct there is no right of appeal? May I take an extreme example where the ballot is so close that the majority required is one or two only. If there is an allegation of misconduct, is there still no right of appeal?

Mr. Carr: There is the theoretical right to go to the High Court. However, I see my hon. Friend's point and I have said that I cannot properly satisfy it because we have had to make a judgment as to whether it would be right and helpful to set up the machinery in order to satisfy him. The ballots will be conducted by the C.I.R. who will become expert and professional in conducting them. I sincerely hope and believe that ballots conducted by a body such as the C.I.R. will command respect and will have integrity, and that there will not be grounds for charges of gross misconduct and so forth.
Nevertheless the authority of these ballots is only a natural authority. If it is so close as to be a matter of a few


votes one way or the other, I do not think it will help very much to resolve the dispute in question. I believe it could be helpful in resolving the dispute in question if such a ballot in those circumstances showed a pretty clear decision of opinion for or against. But if it is really narrowly poised, and since no natural rights flow from it, I doubt whether it would have much influence.
On balance, we decided that to provide machinery for questioning this sort of ballot, in view of the time delay that would be involved in that, with the possibility of holding it again—all this happening while an industrial dispute was active—would nullify the whole procedure. While I wish that I could satisfy my hon. Friend, we felt that there were some strong practical reasons for not providing the machinery, realising that this was a ballot which, according to the natural authority that it commanded, might be influential and might be influential for the good.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: Notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman said about the other Amendments, he has done nothing to assuage my anxieties about No. 256. I am sure that if he has not satisfied me he has not satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who also had some vocal support from some of my other hon. Friends. I share their view that, while the right hon. Gentleman's words are no doubt offered in good faith, it is for the Court to interpret the black and white of the Bill.
While I accept his view that common sense suggests that, if all the parties agree, there is no reason why they should not make the alteration, there is nothing about this in the Bill. What he proposes would put an extraordinary and unprecedented power in the hands of the Court. If and when we reach Amendment No. 256, we shall therefore seek to divide on it.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 107, in page 42, line 26 at end insert:
() the application is made by the organisation of workers in respect of which the

order was made, or, where the order was made in respect of a joint negotiating panel, the application is made by an organisation of workers represented on that panel.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Under the Clause as it stood, after an order had been made by the Court withdrawing a right to recognition, the Court was debarred from entertaining any subsequent application for two years from any other organisation of workers or trade union. The Government did not intend the Clause to have that effect. The Amendment is introduced to limit the bar on any subsequent application during the two years only to the organisation of workers from which the recognition has been withdrawn.

The Amendment has the entirely benevolent effect of allowing a union which has not been displaced by reason of a withdrawal order to make application for recognition at any time thereafter, even though such an order has been made. In other words, it will limit the bar on a subsequent application simply any solely to the union from which recognition has been withdrawn. On that basis, I commend it to the House—I hope, without fear of contradiction.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 53

UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICES IN CONNECTION WITH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCEDURES

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 110, in page 44, line 38, at end insert:
(3A) Subsections (1) to (3) of this section shall have effect in relation to an order made under section 48 of this Act in respect of two or more associated employers, but for that purpose shall have effect as if—

(a) any reference in those subsections to the employer were a reference to any of those employers;
(b) in subsections (1)(a) and (2) references to carrying on collective bargaining were references to carrying on such bargaining either alone or jointly with any other employer or employers comprised in the order;
(c) in subsection (1)(b) references to carrying on collective bargaining were references


to carrying on such bargaining jointly with the other employer or employers comprised in the order.
(3B) In relation to an order which is made subject to a reservation under section 48(1A) of this Act, nothing in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall be construed as applying to collective bargaining in respect of matters which, by virtue of that reservation, are excepted from the exclusive

negotiating rights of the sole bargaining agent.

Motion made and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 220.

Division No. 463.]
AYES
[7.34 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Luce, R. N.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fookes, Miss Janet
MacArthur, Ian


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Foster, Sir John
McCrindle, R. A.


Atkins, Humphrey
Fowler, Norman
McLaren, Martin


Awdry, Daniel
Fox, Marcus
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (st'fford & Stone)
McMaster, Stanley


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fry, Peter
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Balniel, Lord
Gardner, Edward
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maddan, Martin


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Madel, David


Bell, Ronald
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Marten, Neil


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol


Benyon, W.
Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray


Biffen, John
Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Blaker, Peter
Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Green, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Body, Richard
Grieve, Percy
Moate, Roger


Boscawen, Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Money, Ernle


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Bowden, Andrew
Grylls, Michael
Monro, Hector


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gummer, Selwyn
Montgomery, Fergus


Braine, Bernard
Gurden, Harold
More, Jasper


Bray, Ronald
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mudd, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Murton, Oscar


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Neave, Airey


Bryan, Paul
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Normanton, Tom


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Haselhurst, Alan
Nott, John


Buck, Antony
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Bullus, Sir Eric
Havers, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Burden, F. A.
Hawkins, Paul
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hay, John
Osborn, John


Carlisle, Mark
Hayhoe, Barney
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hicks, Robert
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Channon, Paul
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Chapman, Sydney
Hiley, Joseph
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Peel, John


Churchill, W. S.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Percival, Ian


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Holt, Miss Mary
Pink, R. Bonner


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter
Pounder, Rafton


Clegg, Walter
Hornby, Richard
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cockeram, Eric
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Coombs, Derek
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, David (Guildford)
Raison, Timothy


Costain, A. P.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, John
Redmond, Robert


Crouch, David
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Curran, Charles
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees, Peter (Dover)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Jessel, Toby
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dean, Paul
Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dixon, Piers
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Ridsdale, Julian


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Drayson, C. B.
Kinsey, J. R.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kirk, Peter
Rost, Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lambton, Antony
Scott, Nicholas


Eyre, Reginald
Lane, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Farr, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Fell, Anthony
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fidler, Michael
Longden, Gilbert
Sinclair, Sir George



Loveridge, John
Skeet, T. H. H.




Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Temple, John M.
Walters, Dennis


Soref, Harold
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Ward, Dame Irene


Speed, Keith
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Spence, John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Sproat, Iain
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanbrook, Ivor
Trew, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Stokes, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Sutcliffe, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Worsley, Marcus


Tapsell, Peter
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Waddington, David



Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Tebbit, Norman
Wall, Patrick





NOES


Albu, Austen
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Lady wood)
McBride, Neil


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McGuire, Michael


Allen, Scholefield
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington
Mackie, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Foley, Maurice
Maclennan, Robert


Ashley, Jack
Foot, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Ashton, Joe
Ford, Ben
McNamara, J. Kevin


Atkinson, Norman
Forrester, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marks, Kenneth


Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)
Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David


Beaney, Alan
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marsden, F.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, W. E.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Meacher, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Golding, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bishop, E. S.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mendelson, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Booth, Albert
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Molloy, William


Bradley, Tom
Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Buchan, Norman
Hattersley, Roy
Moyle, Roland


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Heffer, Eric S.
Murray, Ronald King


Cant, R, B.
Horam, John
Ogden, Eric


Carmichael, Neil
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
O'Malley, Brian


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Oram, Bert


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Orme, Stanley


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Paget, R. T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Crawshaw, Richard
Janner, Greville
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cronin, John
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pendry, Tom


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pentland, Norman


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
John, Brynmor
Perry, Ernest G.


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prescott, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Delargy, H. J.
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Doig, Peter
Kelley, Richard
Roper, John


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Paul B.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lambie, David
Sandelson, Neville


Driberg, Tom
Latham, Arthur
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lawson, George
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dunnett, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Eadie, Alex
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Edelman, Maurice
Leonard, Dick
Silverman, Julius


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Skinner, Dennis


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Evans, Fred
Loughlin, Charles
Spearing, Nigel


Faulds, Andrew
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stallard, A. W.







Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Tomney, Frank
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Torney, Tom
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Tuck, Raphael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Strang, Gavin
Wainwright, Edwin
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woof, Robert


Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Wallace, George



Thomas, Jeffery (Abertillery)
Watkins, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. James Hamilton and


Tinn, James
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. William Hamling.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 54

GENERAL DUTY OF EMPLOYERS TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION

Lords Amendment: No. 115, in page 45, line 29, after ("of") insert ("all the stages of").

Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment was moved in another place by the official Opposition and accepted by the Government. The intention of the Clause is that the employer's obligation to disclose information should start at the stage when management and unions get together to discuss definite proposals for a change in the terms and conditions of employment or a procedure agreement, but not before then. The requirement to disclose information is, therefore, limited by subsection (1) to the circumstances of collective bargaining between the employer's and trade union's representatives.

Moreover, collective bargaining is defined in Clause 158(1) as meaning
negotiations with respect to terms and conditions of employment, or with respect to the making, variation or rescission of a procedure agreement, or with respect to any matter to which in accordance with this section a procedure agreement can relate".
This precise definition is needed because the Industrial Court will have to pay regard to it when failure to comply with Clause 54 results in complaints under Clause 98.

It was always the Government's intention that the employer's obligation to disclose information should exist at all stages of collective bargaining, as defined. Indeed, we were confident that that would be the case under the Clause as drafted; but to put the matter entirely beyond doubt we are happy to recommend the House to accept the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 116, in page 46, line 6, after "be" insert "or be confirmed".

Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 117, in page 46, line 10, at end insert "or confirming".

Mr. Harold Walker: We have no objection to that course.

Mr. Dudley Smith: This Amendment concerns the situation when a union has received information orally from an employer but at some later stage in the same round of collective bargaining decides that it requires that information in writing. In this situation it would be anomalous to deny the union the right to written information which it could have received previously, had it wished, and the Amendment would write the union's entitlement into the Bill, which we believe is a desirable thing to do.
This right will extend only to information which the employer is obliged to disclose under Clause 54 and will not cover additional confidential information which the employer might disclose as an earnest of trust and good faith.

Amendment No. 117 is purely consequential on Amendment No. 116 being accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO EMPLOYEES BY MAJOR EMPLOYERS

Lords Amendment: No. 118, in page 46, line 26, after "which" insert:
on any date within a financial year of the undertaking".

7.45 p.m.

Mr. R. Carr: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps it would be convenient for the House also to discuss the following Lords Amendments: No. 120, in page 46, line 27, after "persons" insert:
other than excepted persons".
No. 121, line 30, leave out "periodical statements" and insert:
in respect of that financial year a statement".
No. 122, line 32, leave out from "shall" to end of line 34, and insert:
be issued not later than six months after the end of the financial year to which it relates".
No. 123, in line 40, leave out from "relates" to end of line 5 on page 47, and insert:
and who is not on that date an excepted person".
No. 125, in page 47, line 36, at end insert:
("() In this section "financial year", in relation to an undertaking, means a period for which the accounts of the undertaking are made up (including any such period part of which is before and part after the commencement of this Act); and for the purposes of this section a person is an excepted person on any date if on that date—

(a) he is employed under a contract which normally involves employment for less than twenty-one hours weekly, or
(b) he has been employed in the undertaking in question for less than thirteen weeks, or
(c) he is outside Great Britain and is a person who under his contract of employment ordinarily works outside Great Britain.")

Mr. Harold Walker: We have no objection to that course.

Mr. Carr: These Amendments are designed to clarify Clause 55 and also to stop one possible loophole. Although they achieve more than one object, they are so closely linked that they must be considered together. They fall into two groups. The first concerns the calculation of the number of persons referred to in subsection (1); that is, 500 as written in the Bill, but reduced to a smaller number by a later Amendment. Unlike Clause 54, this Clause applies only to employers with more than the qualifying number of employees. The present drafting leaves in some doubt the manner in which and the time at which this figure is to be calculated.

Amendment No. 118 therefore provides that all employers who employ more than the minimum qualifying number of people at any one time in the financial year come within the scope of the Clause. Correspondingly, Amendments Nos. 120 and 123 make it clear that temporary, part-time and overseas workers are not to be included in the determination of the qualifying number. The reason is that these employees do not have the same degree of interest in the undertaking as have the normal full-time employees. It therefore seemed to us logical that they should not be taken into account in determining which undertakings should come within the scope of the Clause.

Agriculture provides a practical example, though there are other industries. Certain agricultural enterprises may well employ, and often employ, a large number of people for a short time in the year, during the harvest, but for most of the year employ considerably smaller numbers which would not anywhere near bring them within the qualifying numbers. The hotel and catering industry provides us with another example.

The thinking behind the Clause is that the need for statements and other forms of good communication is greatest in the largest enterprises. That is what has influenced our thinking on this question of size, and also on the question of the sort of people who should be included when calculating whether or not an undertaking qualifies under the Clause. We think that it would be anomalous to bring employers within the scope of the Clause merely because their activities required large numbers of people for a small part of the year.

It is right that this information should be made available, and we have no sympathy with those companies which complain about the trouble caused by having to give information to their employees. But we should be careful before causing that amount of trouble to undertakings merely because for some special reason and for a very short time of the year they have a very much higher number of employees than they have for most of the year.

Amendments Nos. 118, 121 and 122 and part of Amendment No. 125 are


intended to stop a loophole. The Clause as drafted only requires periodical statements which relate to the previous year, and it would, therefore, be technically possible, we realised, for an employer to evade the whole spirit of the Clause by issuing a statement perhaps once every seven years, so long as when he did issue the statement it applied to the previous year. The obvious intention is that the statement should be issued annually. While we did not envisage that many employers would attempt to escape the intended obligation, we felt it right to eliminate this technical loophole.

The financial year has been chosen in preference to the calendar year because we think it more suited to the custom and accounting practice of individual employers. We expect, in any case, that much of the information in the statements will be financial, even though not all of it is, and so can be based more conveniently on the undertaking's financial year.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 119, in page 46, line 27, leave out '500' and insert '350'.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 1, leave out '350' and insert '50'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this proposed Amendment to the Lords Amendment we can take that to Lords Amendment No. 124, in line 1, leave out '350' and insert '50'.

Mr. Walker: I hope to deal with this matter very briefly because we have here a clear, straightforward, simple issue. The Lords Amendment initially provided that under the disclosure requirements the number should be reduced from 500 to 350. We welcome that. Then my noble Friends sought to reduce the number to 200, but we have since had representations that revelation of information is of equal importance irrespective of the numbers in the establishment. Why should people be discriminated against just because they work in a small establishment rather than in a big place? It seems to us to be just as easy, if not easier, for a small employer to provide

the information as it is for a large employer.
In reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates in another place I noted the intervention of the noble Lord who is, I think, the Leader of the Liberals there—Lord Beaumont of Whitley—who said that he saw no reason why the obligation should not apply to every firm. He described the obligation as the absolute basis of good industrial relationship no matter what the size of the firm.
The noble Lord having been so anxious to reduce the numbers, we had hoped on this present occasion to have the support of Liberal hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] It is a matter of deep regret that not only have the Liberal hon. Members not graced our debate this evening but, as far as I can recall, they have—with the very eloquent and useful exception of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)—been absent almost throughout this stage of the Bill's progress. We note the absence of Liberal hon. Members who would have been able to support us in seeking to extend this beneficial provision to smaller employments. The difficulties that were once thought to exist are not, I am convinced, any longer a real obstacle.

Mr. R. Carr: With the spirit of what the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) said, and with his ultimate intention, I have no reason to disagree. This is one of those maddening cases where Governments often tend to be stuffy for what they conceive, rightly or wrongly, to be sound, cautious reasons not only of administration but of feeling one's way. I have always been a very strong believer in the desirability of giving the people who work in an under taking the maximum possible information about that undertaking's affairs and its more general prospects and plans—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Including U.C.S.

Mr. Carr: One of the troubles there was that the employers did not themselves know what they were doing, so they were not exactly the people to tell their employees.
As I was saying, I believe in giving information. Nevertheless, this is a new concept of general practice. Many companies, large, medium-sized and small,


have done this for a long time. Unfortunately, in terms of the total number of companies, this is still the exception rather than the rule. Once the Bill becomes law, it will become increasingly the rule rather than the exception.
8.0 p.m.
There will be some need for experiment, for trial and error, in the best ways of giving the sort of information which is most meaningful to employees. One could simply say that every company, or at least every public company, should send a copy of its annual report to all its employees. That would be better than nothing; but I sometimes find annual reports difficult to understand. They vary in their comprehensibility.
There is no question of wanting to give employees less information than shareholders, far from it; but time will be needed for experiment and for trial and error about the most meaningful ways in which to give information to employees once it becomes a statutory requirement to do so rather than something which companies have developed, as I think rightly, as a matter of good practice.
We feel that we ought to start rather cautiously. As we believe that the main need for this provision is in the larger companies and as by definition the larger companies are of a relatively small number, we think it right to start with a relatively small number of larger companies and to learn by experience, but subsection (7) of the Clause empowers the Secretary of State to vary the figure when experience suggests that is desirable. It would be my intention to vary the figure downwards as quickly as possible.
My first judgment was that we should make 500 employees the minimum qualifying figure. As a result of pressure in another place, where 200 was suggested by the Opposition, as one noble Lord pointed out with great skill, we arithmetically exactly split the difference between 500 and 200 and came up with the figure of 350, which was acceptable to another place. I must advise the House that, to start with, this is as low a number as we should reasonably have and to go down in size would be greatly to increase the number of undertakings involved.
I believe that we should get the practice needed with this small number of undertakings in the first year or two and learn by trial and error before greatly increasing the number. I have to admit that this is a matter of judgment. This is our judgment, and I advise the House to stick to it. However, I can tell the hon. Member for Doncaster that I am in complete agreement with the spirit of what he says, and, for what it is worth, I assure the House that it is my intention to use the powers of subsection (7) to reduce the number sooner rather than later.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Did we not have an Amendment from the Government to postpone the date upon which the giving of information became obligatory in certain cases? The right hon. Gentleman then said what he has just repeated about the large number of small companies, and one understands that. But could he now be more explicit? The Lords Amendment would reduce the number of employees from 500 to 350, and my hon. Friends are asking for an even smaller number. Is 350 the kind of figure which the right hon. Gentleman has now power to postpone? He was not able to say earlier what kind of figure he had in mind, and he was able to give reasons for that, but we are now discussing figures and it is important for the House to know at what stage the employers we have in mind will be bound to give information to their employees.
At the moment, no matter what the figure is, it is apparently still the case that workers in a comparatively small factory will not get this information for some time. Until the right hon. Gentleman believes that the first stage is on course or has been accomplished, he will not make it obligatory for employers to give this information. We shall not know at what stage the giving of information by employers will be mandatory until we know what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. For how long will he operate the power of deferment which he obtained in that earlier Amendment?
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the need for information, especially in small firms. The bigger firms do not have as much difficulty about getting this kind of information, but the smaller are most backward in organisation. We do not yet know at what stage the firms of


350 employees and fewer will be able to ask employers for information.

Mr. R. Carr: I assure the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) that I intend in this instance to move straight to the figure of 350 and not to get down to it in stages. I cannot tell him precisely when, because once the Bill is law there will be many areas about which I shall have to consult, and this is clearly one where I shall have to consult closely with industry and the trade unions about the sort of regulations

needed to get the sort of information which is available to employers and useful to and wanted by employees. However, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall go straight to the 350 and as soon as possible thereafter use the regulating powers in subsection (7) to reduce the number still further.

Question put, That the Amendment be made to the Lords Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 247.

Division No. 464.]
AYES
[8.09 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lipton, Marcus


Allen, Scholefield
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B' ham, Ladywood)
Loughlin, Charles


Archer, Peler (Rowey Regis)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Armstrong, Ernest
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Ashley, Jack
Foley, Maurice
McBride, Neil


Ashton, Joe
Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael


Atkinson, Norman
Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John


Barnett, Joel
Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan, Robert


Beaney, Alan
Galpern, Sir Myer
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, W. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Golding, John
Marks, Kenneth


Bishop, E. S.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marquand, David


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gourlay, Harry
Marsden, F.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Meacher, Michael


Booth, Albert
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mendelson, John


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Millan, Bruce


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Buchan, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Molloy, William


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'bnrn)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cant, R. B.
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Carmichael, Neil
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Moyle, Roland


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Heffer, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Horam, John
Murray, Ronald King


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric


Cohen, Stanley
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
O'Halloran, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Huckfield, Leslie
O'Malley, Brian


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oram, Bert


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Orme, Stanley


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oswald, Thomas


Crawshaw, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Paget, R. T.


Cronin, John
Janner, Greville
Palmer, Arthur


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Doublas
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pendry, Tom


Davidson, Arthur
John, Brynmor
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Prescott, John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Probert, Arthur


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roper, John


Doig, Peter
Judd, Frank
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Driberg, Tom
Kinnock, Neil
Sandelson, Neville


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lambie, David
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dunnett, Jack
Latham, Arthur
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Eadie, Alex
Lawson, George
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Edelman, Maurice
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silverman, Julius


English, Michael
Leonard, Dick
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Fred
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Small, William




Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Spearing, Nigel
Tinn, James
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Spriggs, Leslie
Tomney, Frank
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Stallard, A. W.
Torney, Tom
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Tuck, Raphael
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Varley, Eric G.
Woof, Robert


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wainwright, Edwin



Strang, Gavin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wallace, George
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Watkins, David
Mr. William Hamling.


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Whitehead, Phillip





NOES


Adley, Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
McLaren, Martin


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Foster, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fowler, Norman
McMaster, Stanley


Atkins, Humphrey
Fox, Marcus
Macmillan, Maurice, (Farnham)


Awdry, Daniel
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gardner, Edward
Maddan, Martin


Balniel, Lord
Gibson-Watt, David
Madel, David


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marten, Neil


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mather, Carol


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maude, Angus


Bell, Ronald
Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Benyon, W.
Gorst, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gower, Raymond
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Biffen, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Biggs-Davidson, John
Gray, Hamish
Moate, Roger


Blaker, Peter
Green, Alan
Money, Ernle


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Grieve, Percy
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Body, Richard
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Monro, Hector


Boscawen, Robert
Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gummer, Selwyn
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Bowden, Andrew
Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Braine, Bernard
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mudd, David


Bray, Ronald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neave, Airey


Brocklehank-Fowler, Christopher
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Normanton, Tom


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Nott, John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley


Bryan, Paul
Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John


Buck, Antony
Havers, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Burden, F. A.
Hay, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hayhoe, Barney
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Carlisle, Mark
Hicks, Robert
Peel, John


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Percival, Ian


Channon, Paul
Hiley, Joseph
Pink, R. Bonner


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Pounder, Rafton


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Churchill, W. S.
Holt, Miss Mary
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hordern, Peter
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hornby, Richard
Raison, Timothy


Clegg, Walter
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cockeram, Eric
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Redmond, Robert


Coombs, Derek
Howell, David (Guildford)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Costain, A. P.
Hunt, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Critchlay, Julian
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Crouch, David
Iremonger, T. L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Curran, Charles
James, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jessel, Toby
Ridsdale, Julian


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dean, Paul
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dixon, Piers
Kilfedder, James
Rost, Peter


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kinsey, J. R.
Scott, Nicholas


Drayson, G. B.
Kirk, Peter
Scott-Hopkins, James


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knox, David
Sharples, Richard


Dykes, Hugh
Lambton, Antony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lane, David
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Eyre, Reginald
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sinclair, Sir George


Farr, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fell, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Longden, Gilbert
Soref, Harold


Fidler, Michael
Loveridge, John
Speed, Keith


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Spence, John


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
MacArthur, Ian
Sproat, Iain



McCrindle, R. A.
Stanbrook, Ivor







Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Helper)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, w.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Stokes, John
Trew, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wiggin, Jerry


Sutcliffe, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Wilkinson, John


Tapsell, Peter
van Straubenzes, W. R.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Waddington, David
Worsley, Marcus


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Tebbit, Norman
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek



Temple, John M.
Wall, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Walters, Dennis
Mr. Jasper More and


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. Tim Fortescue.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to

Clause 57

OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH REGULATIONS UNDER S. 56

Lords Amendment: No. 126, in page 49, line 19, after "false" insert "in a a material particular".

Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can also discuss Lords Amendment No. 127 with this.

Mr. Dudley Smith: This is a small but not unimportant Amendment. As the Bill stands, a person would be guilty of an offence if he made a statement which he knew to be false or recklessly made a statement which was false in furnishing information required by regulations made under Clause 56.
This could mean, for example, that an employer would be liable to prosecution simply because some minor and unimportant detail in his submission had gone unchecked and, therefore, was incorrect. The acceptance of this Amendment and Amendment 127 will make it clear that only if an employer submitted information which was incorrect to a significant degree would he be liable to prosecution.
Two other parts of the Bill, paragraphs 36(2) and 44(4)(c) of Schedule 3 also defines circumstances in which furnishing false information constitutes an offence. In both cases the offences will be committed only if the information submitted is false in a material particular. The Amendment and that associated with it will bring Clause 57 into line with these provisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 59

TRADE UNIONS AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS OF WORKERS

Lords Amendment: No. 128, in page 50, line 5, after "Act" insert "(subject to section 84)".

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient also to discuss Lords Amendment No. 129, in page 50, line 13, after "Act" insert "(subject to section 84)".

The Solicitor-General: These Amendments propose small changes in the wording of Clause 59 to bring it into line with the wording of Clause 84. Clause 59, as drafted, dealt only with the registration of workers' organisations as such. As a result of the establishment of the special register—which was designed not for professional organisations but for bodies which by reason of their constitution as chartered or incorporated bodies could not qualify for registration on the ordinary register—it has become necessary to make a small adjustment in the terms of Clause 59.
Once a body is on the special register, then, by Clause 84, it becomes an organisation of workers, but its terms of eligibility for entry on the special register are different from those set out in Clause 59 for entry on the ordinary register of organisations of workers. To make those two provisions match, there is a reference in Clause 84 to Clause 59. Corresponding cross-references from Clause 59 to Clause 84 are needed, and it is those which are inserted by the Amendments.

Mrs. Castle: The Solicitor-General says that the Amendments make small alterations to Clause 59, but he would be


the first to recognise that they cloak a quite large point of principle and of policy. The purpose of the Amendments is to qualify the definitions of subsections (1) and (2) so as to provide that an organisation of workers whose principal object is not the regulation of the terms and conditions of employment of its members can still enjoy the benefits of the Bill by going on the special register.
An organisation of workers which does not register on the ordinary register and which is not qualified for the special register not only loses all the benefits of the Bill, but incurs severe penalties. It not only faces the risk of paying unlimited damages if it engages in an unfair industrial practice but loses certain tax privileges which it at present enjoys on its provident funds.
We all know whom the special register is designed to accommodate. The introduction of the concept of the special register here and elsewhere in the Bill is the result of urgent representations by the British Medical Association on its own behalf and on behalf of other professional bodies, like the Royal College of Nursing and the chartered engineers, which wanted the best of both worlds. They wanted to retain both their industrial relations activities as representing the interests of their members concerning their terms and conditions of employment and their educational and other purposes which were the basis on which their charters were granted or which were, they claimed, an equivalent part of their activities.
The Government had a very ready ear for the needs of professional groups of this kind, and the special register concept was introduced—and this is why we are having to amend the Clause—in order to give them the best of both worlds so that they did not have to give up their negotiating activities or the other activities on which their royal charters and other raisons d'être were based.
There is, however, a neat form of class distinction here. Other organisations of workers which also have excellent reasons for not wanting to register on the ordinary register are given no choice. They have to submit to the indignity of having to acquire a State licence to operate on the State's terms—and those terms are embodied

in the Bill—or become industrial outcasts.
In the Bill there is a succession of indications of the ways in which the Government intend to penalise organisations of workers which do not want to register on the ordinary register and for which the special register is not designed to cater. Not only do they lose the immunity of Section 3 of the 1906 Act on their industrial relations activities; they are given no bargaining rights under the Bill. They are even denied the privileges of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act. If they are held to have committed an unfair industrial practice, they are liable for unlimited damages. Finally, the tax relief on their provident funds is placed in jeopardy.
There is a parallel here. Many organisations of workers which fully operate as trade unions have different facets to their activities. They are not merely bargaining units concerned wtih negotiating terms and conditions of employment for their members. They go wider. They, too, have their ideals and educational rôle. Above all, there is the humane aspect of the provident benefits which they provide for their members and which help to form a cohesive factor in the life of the organisation. They help to give it its morality and solidarity. They help to give their members their sense of comradeship. This has been a genuine aspect of their rôle in our society since the beginning of trade unionism. People banded together as brothers to protect each other in all sorts of ways, not least when it came to sickness or unemployment or in the event of other misadventures of life against which working people, in particular, are so defenceless. Therefore, these provident activities of unions have always been an integral part of their personality, and, I repeat, they are separate from and different from their industrial activities, as the educational work of the B.M.A. is different from its negotiating activities.
8.30 p.m.
Therefore, in our earlier discussion of this we advanced the proposition to the Government that they were exercising an intolerable piece of discrimination in this Bill against one type of organisation of workers, because, we argued, if an organisation of workers, if a trade union currently registered under the 1871 Act, did not register under this Government's


Bill on this Government's terms, which the unions find repugnant, then the rest of its activities would be placed at risk, because we know that the provident activities can operate successfully only with the benefit of tax relief to which they have hiherto, happily, been entitled in respect of those activities.
We got a good deal of support from the other side of the House. I remember the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) getting up and saying, in a very fair and excellent speech, "Yes, of course, the provident activities of trade unions are entirely different from their industrial activities, and the unions ought not to be penalised for their provident activities because they do not wish to register for industrial relations purposes under the Bill."
This is a very basic point of principle, and so basic is it that the right hon. Gentleman himself got up and repudiated the suggestion that this was in any way the Government's intention. I remember that he did so when rejecting an Amendment which we put before him at that time to make the position of the provident funds of trade unions absolutely clear.
The right hon. Gentleman, in our debate on the special register, had been arguiing that it would be quite wrong to subject the B.M.A., the lordly B.M.A., to the inconvenience of separating out its activities so as to avoid any difficulties under the Bill as it then stood. When we said to him, "Look, it is equally wrong, therefore, to ask trade unions to separate out their activities" and pressed an Amendment upon him to safeguard their tax reliefs, the right hon. Gentleman turned us down. Our proposition was that trade unions which did not want to register on the right hon. Gentleman's new register for industrial relations purposes should still be able to obtain tax relief for their provident activities provided they registered under the 1871 Act. We accepted his point that registration was a condition for that relief, but we said that for this purpose they should have their own special register, just as the B.M.A. is given one.
The right hon. Gentleman turned us down on that; but he said he was not turning us down on ideological grounds. There were some hon. Gentlemen opposite who, in the usual truculent Tory

way, said, "It is quite right that if trade unions do not register they should lose tax relief". I am glad to say that the right hon. Gentleman disowned some of the more reactionary of the hon. Members behind him. "But", he said, "while I accept the principle, I am rejecting the Amendment because it is unnecessary." That was his argument. Let me quote what he said at that time:
I assure the House that if it were necessary to set up a special register for trade unions which wished not to register in the industrial relations sense, so that they could continue the other half of their activities, their provident fund activities, I would propose a special register. But it is not necessary. I have gone into this most carefully. I am told that there is no technical, constitutional or legal difficulty. I am assured on technical advice that the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1965, or the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, is available for registering for the provident funds of unions which do not wish to register under the Bill in the industrial relations sense."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 23rd March, 1971: Vol. 814, c. 335.]
We pointed out to him at the time that even if his argument was correct he was still subjecting the trade unions to an inconvenience in the arrangement of their affairs that he was prepared to protect the B.M.A. against. But since he gave the House that assurance a lot of things have happened, and it is essential to examine them. I hope that he will listen carefully.
First—I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will deny this—it is now admitted by his noble and learned Friend in another place that his reference to the Industrial and Provident Societies Act as being available for this purpose was wrong. He assured us that it would help. I understand that it is now accepted that the advice he had on that point was wrong. So we are left with the facilities and hopes available to the trade union movement under the Friendly Societies Act. Since our debates earlier in the House, in which the T.U.C. took a profound interest because some £5 million to £6 million of union funds are at stake here, the T.U.C. itself has taken the advice of two learned counsel as to what the position will be if the Bill goes through in its present form. The advice of learned counsel is that the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the protection of the Friendly Societies is wrong as well. As a result of this, the T.U.C. has sent out a circular


letter to its members which includes the following:
The conclusion seems unavoidable that neither of these"—
neither of the Acts—
would provide a satisfactory means of securing tax exemptions. It is however possible that one or two unions might find the Friendly Societies' solution practicable in their own circumstances.
You will note that the Opinion of Counsel demonstrates that in his statement of March 23 Mr. Robert Carr was—intentionally or otherwise—giving a very misleading account of the operation of the Friendly Societies Act.
It is a major interest of the T.U.C. that it should be able to assure its unions on this point, because it is official T.U.C. policy to advise its members not to register. It is hardly likely, therefore, to produce evidence of the disabilities of refusing to register unless it thought that the evidence was so sound that it should warn its members on this point.
I think that all of us will agree that every union has been led, as the result of the advice it has received, to act on the assumption that if it decides not to register it will be financially penalised through the withdrawal of this tax relief. Every article one reads in the Press as to the effect of the Bill follows the same theme. There was an article in The Guardian only a day or two ago about the agonising choice facing unions on the question of whether or not to register. It too assumed, totally contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman was telling the House, and as everyone assumed, that, of course, if a union did not register its tax relief would be placed at risk and almost certainly be not available.
I do not want to weary the House with the details of why the T.U.C.'s learned counsel argue that the protection afforded by the Friendly Societies Act is no protection at all. There was a complicated, complex and abstruse argument on this point in another place whether that Act applied only to organisations whose contributions were voluntary, and so on and so forth. The House over the past five days has had—to use a vulgarism—a belly-full of legal details and I do not want to add to them. Hon. Members can read in the Lords Hansard for 20th July the arguments advanced by Lord

Diamond, who quoted the T.U.C.'s learned counsel.
The point I want to make is this, and I put it moderately to the right hon. Gentleman because it is a matter of major substance. Surely he will admit that, at least, there is a legal doubt whether the advice he gave on the Friendly Societies Act is any more reliable than the advice he gave us on the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. When Lord Diamond and the Lord Chancellor debated this matter in another place, the Lord Chancellor was very frank about it. He more or less said that they should agree to disagree. He said:
there is a considerable difference between the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and myself about this matter. … I can only leave the House to judge between us …".
He then repudiated the suggestion that the Secretary of State's honour was in any way at stake because he said that the right hon. Gentleman acted on the advice of the Solicitor-General.
The Lord Chancellor then made the moving statement:
although I belong to a profession where we have to acknowledge that legal advice is not infallible, I know of no particular reason to believe that the Solicitor-General is wrong in this case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th July, 1971; Vol. 322, c. 912 and 915.]
That is the final word on this subject from the highest legal luminary in the land. It confirms in my mind that the Solicitor-General's monopoly in this Bill is now complete. He is the only one who understands it; and he is the one person whose word everybody, including the Lord Chancellor, now has to take as holy writ. If we cannot get anything more comforting than those words from the Lord Chancellor, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman owes a duty to the House to fulfil the pledge he gave that he did not intend a trade union's provident funds to be penalised.
There are technical quite apart from legal considerations. Although the right hon. Gentleman has said that there are no technical, constitutional or legal difficulties, these have been admitted by Lord Drumalbyn during the discussions in another place. Lord Diamond quoted a letter he had received from Lord Drumalbyn on 30th June when they were exchanging a vast amount of correspondence on this matter. That letter


included the following words by Lord Drumalbyn:
I would not, of course, wish to imply that it would be a simple matter for a trade union to take this step"—
that is the step of separate registration as a friendly society—
It might face problems depending on the provisions in its constitution and rules relating to the powers of its trustees, the nature of the provident benefits to be provided to members, and the method by which they are financed. At the very least it seems probable that the consent of members to major changes in union rules would be needed, and in some cases it seems quite possible that complex financial and actuarial questions might arise over the division of union funds and assets between those to be used for general purposes and those to be allocated to the friendly society taking over responsibility for provident benefits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th July, 1971; Vol. 322, c. 909–10.]
In view of his noble Friend's letter, can the right hon. Gentleman in all honesty repeat tonight that he knows of no technical difficulty? If that is not a list of technical difficulties, I do not know what is. On the very best interpretation, this is hardly honouring the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman gave the House.
8.45 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman showed enormous concern in protecting organisations like the B.M.A. from technical difficulties. In calling on him tonight to honour the undertaking which he gave, I suggest to him that there is a simple way out of the problem. At this stage, because of the restricted scope of the Lords Amendments and the fact that such an Amendment was never carried in the other place, we are estopped from introducing an Amendment now, but I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that he has a way out.
I understand that the Government have already recognised that there may be difficulties for unions which are on the provisional register and are not, therefore, fully registered for the purposes of tax relief. The Government have leaned over backwards to help them, no doubt because the right hon. Gentleman hopes that they will be the good boys who will register fully in due course. They have found an easy way to help them by announcing that it is proposed to bring in a Clause in next year's Finance Bill giving the same tax treatment to organisations

on the provisional register as though they were fully registered as trade unions.
A similar remedy is within the right hon. Gentleman's grasp in the present case. I believe that he gave his undertaking in good faith, but I assure him that very eminent people believe that, as the Bill stands, he is not in a position to honour the undertaking. So I ask him to give an assurance that if his advice proves to be wrong in the event and the legal and practical difficulties for trade unions are insuperable, the Government will in the next Finance Bill introduce a Clause to cover unions registered under the 1871 Act for tax relief purposes, as they are proposing to do for unions on the provisional register.
That is very little to ask if the right hon. Gentleman really meant what he told us in Committee.

Mr. Charles Pannell: A lot of the Government's argument springs from a complete misunderstanding of the history of the trade union movement in this matter. I cite the example of the union to which I belong, which, I believe, is more disadvantaged by the Bill than any other. Its present title is the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. If one looks back into history, one can see how deeply inherent friendly society benefits are in that organisation.
We started as the Millwrights' Society in 1780. Friendly society benefits were inherent at that time for probably 1d. or 2d. a week. By 1825 we were part of the Steam Engine Makers' Society, by 1850 the A.S.E. and by 1920 the A.E.U. We became the A.E.F. and we are now the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. Changes of that sort mark forward stages in the normal progression of an organisation. This is what I want the right hon. Gentleman to understand.

Mr. Orme: He is not listening.

Mr. Pannell: I am trying to make the point—

Mr. R. Carr: I am sorry.

Mr. Pannell: —that when I take a section one A.U.E.W. card—but it was the A.E.U. when I was working for a living—into a factory, I take in not only a trade union ticket, not only a licence


to work, but a certificate of proficiency in the job. The ticket is not given unless a member is a skilled tradesman. There are still places on the Clyde where it is more important to take in the ticket than to take in indentures.
Built in throughout the years have been the friendly society benefits which were once characterised, I think, by a famous novelist as the first defence of the poor. Through the years those funds have been built up. The superannuation fund of my union is built in. No executive council, no ballot vote of the members—nothing—can interfere with it. It is a built-in fund which has nothing whatever to do with the industrial action of the union. And so it is with sickness benefits, funeral benefits and all sorts of other things which in the modern days of the Welfare State may seem rather small but are an essential part of the reason why people joined that union in days gone by.
I understand that the Minister said that this difficulty could be overcome if only we somehow rearranged the funds of the union. A great amount is at stake. I am being modest when I say that the penalties of the Bill would carry my union into the realm of £500,000 a year and that the whole trade union spectrum is disadvantaged to the tune of about £5 million a year. That is very considerable money.
I could understand when the Bill started—although it was mistaken—that we were concerned with industrial relations. We were not concerned with the disadvantaging of friendly societies, which is what the Bill does. One has only to consider what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has read out to know that there is considerable dubiety.
The law has always been an unknown quantity. When one considers the Taff Vale or the Osborne judgment one usually finds that one's expectation is overturned by a majority vote in the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords.
The late J. H. Thomas was absolutely sure in the Osborne case. I knew Osborne. He was a fellow townsman of mine. He was a Liberal born out of his time and not the miscreant that he was made out to be. J. H. Thomas was assured by the best lawyers in the land

that there was no case at all, but it went wrong. One has only to search one's legal memory to find the number of occasions that that sort of thing has happened in the House. A Minister assures us, "This is the law, the case is built in", but then we find that it is overturned in the Court of Appeal.
Who is the Lord Chancellor in the other place? Lord Hailsham. His father, who was also Lord Chancellor, made an expensive mistake here on the deportation of Irishmen. There was a very famous case in which Lord Hailsham was a great Parliamentary figure. He was one of those lawyers who was a natural, eloquent performer in this place. He was opposed by Sir Patrick Hastings on our side, who was not a good Parliamentary performer. When Patrick Hastings put up the case in about 1920 or 1921, he was almost laughed out of the House because his manner seemed so inept compared with Lord Hailsham. But when the court got hold of it it was Lord Hailsham who was turned over and this House had to bring in a Bill of Indemnity. I doubt whether the Solicitor-General would claim that he had the eminence of Sir Douglas Hogg, as he then was, but he was proved wrong. All that my right hon. Friend has asked is that if this is proved wrong the Minister should do no more than enter into an undertaking to right it in the Budget next year. That is a small thing to ask in a case like this.
The unions do not want a register. We understand that. They will probably have to face the penalties of the law. But we should not get over this business by twisting the necks of their sick and superannuated members. Let us make no mistake about it. If a union sacrifices £500,000 a year it means a reduction in investment policy. It also means that the penalty is inflicted upon the applicant seeking relief.
We say a great deal about the sturdy, self-respect of the British working class. It is no more ingrained than in the craftsman class. These people have ensured in other ways, apart from the State, for benefits which often take them beyond social security benefits. It is part of their self-respect. Yet, at the end of the day, we find that the Government have decided to treat craft unions somewhat less than the professional associations. They have


drawn a sharp line between them. But anybody who has looked at the practices of the professional associations—the lawyers, the doctors or anybody else—knows that they have their sanctions against members. Like the craft unions, they are just as much motivated by self-interest, if not more so. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will appreciate that he has got something to put right. He has given assurances to this House in good faith on which doubt has been cast by the law.
Every trade union, including my own, has sought the best possible legal advice. If I had been assured by my trade union that what the right hon. Gentleman wants can in fact be arranged, I should not be making this point tonight. After all, I have been a member of my trade union for 53 years.
I hope that the Minister will come clean on this matter, bearing in mind the great amount of doubt which has been cast on what he has said. I assume that he gave his undertaking in good faith. His good faith is not in doubt, but his judgment and the quality of the legal advice which has been given to him are in doubt. This is a matter where the stakes are high and mean so much to a most useful section of our society. Therefore, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider the position.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: There is no doubt about the value of trade union provident funds. Many unions started their activities through their provident funds. Their membership grew because of the impact of these funds at a time when social security was not what it is today, and when the State was not involved in welfare of one sort and another.
Anyone who knows anything about the trade unions and who supports the work they have done in industry must feel a certain amount of sympathy for those who want to maintain union activity in this respect. It is true that in recent years there has been a considerable reduction of trade union activity in welfare and provident matters. I regret that somewhat, because I think there would be an advantage in trade unions getting away from concentrating on pure wage bargaining and increasing their activities in matters in which they have been involved for many years but in which they have reduced their activities recently.
In conversations that I have had with several trade union members, almost without exception they have said that this is an activity which they do not want to develop themselves because they think that the State ought to be more involved in it. They do not seek to diminish their responsibility, but they do not seek to develop it. This is unfortunate. I should prefer that it were otherwise, and it might be in due course.
I do not want to take sides in the dispute between the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I find it difficult to be certain whether on this issue the lawyers will not find themselves wrong in any event when a case comes before the Court. It may be that in a test case a union will find that things are much easier than it thought they would be. It may, equally, find things more difficult. Some unions may find things easier than others will. The solution, of course, is for the unions to register. If they do, there is no problem.
I think that there are great disadvantages in not registering. There will be disadvantages in another direction in any event, but I do not think that it would be worth while any Minister or Government setting out to force a union to register by getting at its funds, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend and the Government do not have that in mind. We are at the stage of the Bill where we have to take things as they are, and I support those who ask that perhaps this might be looked at in due course by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I say that because the issue may resolve itself over the next few months. It could resolve itself in a number of ways. First, the unions may register, although at present they say that they will not do so. But they may have a change of heart. They may decide that there are advantages in the Bill which they want which outweigh the disadvantages. Despite what has been said in this House, after a period of time the unions may want to register. If they were to do so, there would be no problem.
They may, on the other hand, go to the Court at an early stage, or at least one of them may do so, and that may resolve the problem. But, whatever action


is taken in the course of the next few months, I think that it is fair for us on this side of the House to ask my right hon. Friend to take good note of all that is said. Although he cannot anticipate the Budget—that can be done only by the Chancellor himself—if it so happens that in the course of the next year there is a difficulty which puts at hazard provident funds, which are out- with the normal activities of the union as an industrial bargaining organisation, the Chancellor will consider this to see whether he can assist otherwise, let us face it, the action that would be taken would not really be against the union as such, but would be against certain members of it, because only certain members gain any advantage from provident funds. They are usually those who are sick or old-age pensioners, who are not active and certainly not militant members. At this late stage in the Bill, if it is any consolation to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, I wish to say two things—

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West) rose—

Mr. Lewis: I will give way in a minute. I want to make these points. First, it must be the aim of the Minister to get registration, and it is obviously my wish that there should be registration. Secondly, in the course of time this matter can be looked at again in the light of what I have already said—the possibility that the unions themselves may be taking action, and secondly, in the light of what the Minister sees happening in the country arising from the effects of the Bill. If we leave the matter on that basis, I am sure that it will be concluded satisfactorily in due course.

Mr. Loughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He said that only a given number of members of a union had an advantage from the provident fund. Is he aware that a very high proportion—in the region of 90 per cent. plus—pay contributions based upon the provident fund benefits? If the hon. Gentleman takes out an insurance that presupposes that he is catering for a situation that might arise. Therefore, every one of the members who pays on the basis of scales related to provident

benefits gets an advantage out of the fund.

Mr. Lewis: I accept that. What I was saying was that at any one moment there are only certain people who are getting an advantage. Anyone who pays may get an advantage, and at the end of the day, on retirement, they certainly will. I accept that.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) has produced a number of logical points and I do not dissent from what he has urged upon the Minister. I want to make only one comment on what he has said.
The hon. Gentleman has invited the House to leave the matter in uncertainty, and that is a consequence which I cannot accept. Before the House parts with this legislation, it must be the duty of hon. Members to create reasonable certainty about the incidence of this legislation before we allow it to leave the House of Commons. That is essential. I do not comment in a carping spirit on what the hon. Gentleman has urged, but we need much more certainty than has been suggested.
As the Secretary of State well knows, we are discussing one of the two most critical areas of this legislation. It has been the contention of the Secretary of State that he has felt aware of his function as Minister of Labour in his present office, whatever the name of that office. He has said many times that he fully accepts the case when it is urged upon him that it puts him in a special position among Ministers. In fact, as Minister of Labour, he has denied that there is any attempt at vindictiveness in this legislation.
There have been two main critical areas throughout these debates. The first has been the charge that the Secretary of State and the Government are deliberately attempting to reduce the strength and power of the trade unions. The right hon. Gentleman has always rejected that charge, although he has left us unconvinced.
The second main area of criticism is that in parts of the Bill—this is one—the Secretary of State is trying to hit trade unionists, whether they are engaged in industrial conflict or not. He has


many times protested that that charge was unworthy—

Mr. Anthony Fell: Mr. Anthony Fell (Yarmouth) indicated assent.

Mr. Mendelson: I am glad to have the agreement of the hon. Member that that is what the right hon. Gentleman said.
This is a test case. The passing reference to militants by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford which was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell), showed that he accepts our criticism that the first purpose is to hit militants and to reduce the power and strength of the unions.

Mr. Bidwell: Is it not ironic that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) has earned himself the reputation of being one of the most militant Conservative Members?

Mr. Mendelson: That is an epithet which the hon. Gentleman will probably accept.
We are now in the second most critical area, concerning the social activities of unions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) with his profound experience of the trade union movement has said, this is part of the essence of every union—from the Transport and General Workers Union, to which I belong, to many small unions covering only a small range of industrial activity. No one can understand the growth of the trade union movement without understanding that side of its activities.
The Secretary of State has said many times that he wants no part of any attack on the provident funds of the union, but, if he makes no further assurance, he will be convicted of two crimes—vindictive legislation and an attempt to coerce unions to register against their democratic decisions.
We have quoted Mr. Victor Feather's reasons for opposing registration, and since Committee stage there have been many union conferences which have discussed this matter. Since it is the essence of the right hon. Gentleman's case that he is not coercing unions to register in this roundabout way, surely he should pay due regard to what was said at those conferences.
9.15 p.m.
It is the duty of the Government to accept the burden of the case we are making and agree that a way out must be found. I am not at present commenting on the proposal made by my right hon. Friend, who has been in touch with all sections of the trade union movement through the T.U.C. It is open to the Minister to consider a range of methods to deal with this problem. Either way, he must find a way out and say tonight that he accepts the general case being urged on him.
It would create far too much uncertainty for the Secretary of State to accept the case of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford. One cannot say in this matter that the problem may resolve itself or that there may be a test case. A responsible Government must accept the logic of the situation and show that they are prepared to provide a remedy.
On many occasions since the Bill was introduced people have said that the Government have set out, in cold blood, to weaken the trade union movement and to use all sorts of methods to bring about a weakening of the movement's industrial activities. The Government have repeatedly replied that those who make these allegations are misguided, though little impact has been made on the trade union movement by the assertions of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
We are discussing a matter that goes beyond contentions about the purpose of the Government in respect of trade union activity. We are branching out into the whole sphere of humanitarian social provision. In this instance, the Government must respond to our case and give an assurance that they accept what we are urging on them. We must also be given a clear indication of the way out the right hon. Gentleman intends to provide, and if this is not done the Government will stand convicted of the allegations that have been made about them.

Mr. Skinner: I intend to concentrate on one issue and one section of people. I refer to the Derbyshire miners, though to be accurate I am really speaking of those who have left the industry.
In 1969, when I was their president, there were 15,000 Derbyshire miners belonging to the N.U.M. Out of their contributions of 3s. a week—the overall


amount contributed was gradually reduced because of the loss of 23,000 jobs in the mines in 12 years—1s. 10d. went in old-age benefits. About £70,000 was allocated by the N.U.M. out of its funds not to members of the mining industry but to those who had left it.
The matter did not rest there. In the 'fifties, with pits closing at a fast rate, it was found necessary in the Derbyshire area to introduce a scheme to provide concessionary coal for retired miners and their widows. To this end, the miners contributed a proportion of their own concessionary coal.
There have been a lot of misconceptions. Many people thought that Lord Robens and the Coal Board had always provided the concessionary coal, but in Derbyshire, as elsewhere, it has been provided by the miners themselves. With the closure of the pits in the late fifties and into the sixties it was found that the four tons a year of concessionary coal for miners and widows of retired miners could not be continued unless something was done, so the miners, with the solidarity that has been evident among them for more than a century, surrendered 10s. of the 11s. 9d. in the price of the coal. It was only then that Lords Robens or someone else decided as a quid pro quo to add 10s. to each 10s. contributed by the miners. Yet, I repeat, this was done for those who had left the industry.
Gradually, that concession proved to be not enough, and in my last year as president of the union in Derbyshire we decided to contribute £47,000 out of union funds. That was in addition to the £70,000 already contributed in old age benefits at the rate of £74 per member. It did not rest there. It was decided in the same year to spend another £30,000 on giving retired miners and widows, and in some cases families, a holiday at Skegness. Every penny piece came from the Derbyshire miners.
The people concerned are not people who will have an opportunity to decide whether they should register. They are not even members of the union. Therefore, if the Government let this wording go through as it is they will not be attacking the 13,000 miners of Derbyshire but those countless thousands of retired miners and widows of miners who have benefited from the old

age benefits scheme, the holiday scheme and the concessionary coal scheme, which they think will last for a lifetime. It is high time that the Government stopped attacking the mining industry as it has been doing during the last 15 months, and started carrying out their so-called honest policy of which the Prime Minister spoke on 18th June last year.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has presented to the House a pertinent and moving description of how the trade unions deal with their provident funds. There is a long history behind these provident funds. In the early days they were built up of halfpennies and pennies, until we had accumulated thousands and then millions of pounds for the benefit of members, many of them no longer working at the trade, or perhaps suffering from industrial injury, or fallen on hard times. The trade union movement has maintained the provident funds even in the Welfare State in which the Government have made some dents. We have been told by the Secretary of State for Social Services that people must stand on their own feet more, must make their own provision. The trade unions realise that there is still a need for their provident funds.
I am proud to be a president of my own trade unions branch, and I have been for the last 21 years. Once a fortnight on a Friday evening 30 or 40 superannuated members come to the branch meeting to collect their superannuation to which they have contributed. They are the people who will be penalised by these proposals.
The trade union movement firmly believes that the Government are continuing with this proposal as a means of forcing trade unions to register. I speak not from hearsay but from having attended branch meetings and meetings of shop stewards and other trade union meetings throughout the country when I say that if the Secretary of State wants to mitigate the bitterness already created, if he does not want the trade union movement to be driven beyond being able to accept a reasonable solution from the Government—and as things are going it will be completely impossible if the Bill goes on the Statute Book—if he does not want even more deterioration in the situation, he must do something about this matter.
Some of my hon. Friends and I recently met the executive council of the A.E.U.W.


We were then told that the union's best legal advice, the advice not just of one adviser but of two or three, was that it would be impossible to offset the cost of this money and that the union would have to meet it, that the only way it could get round the problem would be by putting its provident funds into the hands of members over whom it would have no control; and it is impossible for my union to separate these moneys, because of the way in which it is constructed and organised.
Many of us believe that the right hon. Gentleman gave us an assurance in Committee. He has not sought to address the House on this subject in the last five days and it is only through the ingenuity of my right hon. Friend that we have been able to debate it at all. He owes the House and certainly the trade union movement an explanation. The only way out for him and his right hon. Friends is to seek some way to protect these funds so that the argument may be carried on at another level, so that the Government do not try to force the trade unions to register by threatening their sick, industrially injured and old members.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Loughlin: It would be impudent if I were to attempt to detain the House for long, because I was not present during the earlier part of the debate. My hon. Friends have discussed the Government's intentions. I have never had any allusions about the Bill or the Government. I said many times in Committee and on Report that the Bill was designed as a deliberate measure—to use the words of right hon. Gentlemen opposite before and during the General Election—to cut the unions down to size. That is the sum total of it.
What I cannot understand is that the Government should be prepared not merely to shackle the trade unions over industrial disputes through the legal technicalities of the Bill but to be so spiteful and vindictive as to attack the unions through those who have tried to provide additional benefit for themselves over and above that which the union provides when they are sick or unemployed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) so graphically put it, these men may leave the industry and seek benefit from the unions which are prepared to provide it, at some cost and sacrifice,

because of the contribution which these people have made to the industry.
The Government have only one point to answer here. They have to say why, if societies normally known as provident societies, such as the Oddfellows, the "Buffs" and the various other societies, obtain the benefits of tax concessions on the basis of benefits paid to their members because they are registered under the Provident Socities Act, trade unions providing exactly the same benefits for their members should not be treated in the same way. If they cannot answer that I can only deduce that the requirement for trade unions to register to safeguard their position as a provident society is a further sanction upon the unions.
If I were a member of a Government seeking to obtain the co-operation of the trade unions because of our financial and trading position I would want to be able to demonstrate clearly that any action of mine which differentiated between the unions and the provident societies was not based on discrimination against the unions. It would be a gloomy outlook for us without their cooperation. Maybe the right hon. Gentleman has reasonable grounds for imposing this additional requirement, but if he has not, then I charge him with discriminating against the unions in cold blood, as a method of playing on the deficiencies of an individual member, whether sick or unemployed, to dragoon the unions into registration.

Mr. R. Carr: The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) began her speech on this important matter by entering the argument through the door of the special register. She said that I was prepared to do something for the wonderful British Medical Association which I was not prepared to do for other people. Whatever may be the rights and wrongs of this case, that is certainly not one of them, because I am sure that she must know that that argument is totally irrelevant, for the following reason.
The special register, which we provided for companies and chartered bodies which also carry out industrial relations activities, carries exactly the same responsibilities as the ordinary register under the Bill. Bodies which go on the special register accept no more but equally no


less than ordinary trade unions and organisations of workers do when they register. When they go on the special register, bodies like the B.M.A. and the Royal College of Nursing accept the public accountability of registration which is the inherent principle in the concept of registration in the Bill for the conduct of industrial relations. Bodies which go on the special register accept the very degree and the kind of public accountability which some unions are at the moment saying they will refuse to accept. Therefore, whatever may be the rights and wrongs of the main issue, the special register argument is a red herring which is not concerned with it.
In the debate on 23rd March I assured the House that if it were necessary to set up a special register for trade unions which, although not wanting to register with the new Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, nevertheless would need the benefit of an amendment to the Bill to preserve and continue their provident fund activities, I would propose such an amendment. I most certainly stand by that assurance.
I said in the earlier debate that I did not consider that a special register was necessary. Since then I have again carefully studied the position and the case which has been advanced to the contrary, and I assure the House that I remain convinced that such a register is not necessary. It is true that on 23rd March I mentioned two Acts as being possible ways by which trade unions could solve this problem if they decided not to register or to leave the provisional register when they were on it. I accept, as a result of further investigation, that the Industrial and Provident Societies Act is not helpful in this respect. But I am convinced that the other Act, the Friendly Societies Act, is helpful.
I should like to spend a few moments examining the reasons for that opinion. The legal opinion obtained by the T.U.C. not only has been dealt with in debate in another place but has been the subject of meetings and correspondence and has been looked into very carefully. I wish to deal with the major difficulties which the advice received by the T.U.C. seemed to present and to try to explain why we believe the difficulties are not of the kind which were supposed.
I gather that, according to the advice received by the T.U.C. the first major difficulty was that membership of the unregistered trade union and that of the associated friendly society which it would have to set up might diverge. But, even if that were to happen, I would regard it as no more than a disadvantage, certainly not as an insuperable difficulty. However, I cannot see that it need be so in this case on the ground which was put forward, relying on the advice which was given to the T.U.C. that the requirement of Section 8 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896—that membership of the friendly society must be voluntary—must preclude the maintenance of common membership with the trade union.
We do not agree that this is so. This requirement would not prevent a friendly society from adopting a rule limiting membership to persons who were members of a particular trade union. Indeed, there are examples of registered societies with just such rules. Moreover, there is, in our view, no reason for assuming, if a trade union found it necessary in its particular circumstances, that membership of a friendly society should not be made a condition of membership of the trade union, though I am bound to say I do not clearly understand, from what I have heard so far, in what kind of circumstances a union would find it necessary to ensure that all its members were members of a linked friendly society.
I say that because I know that the majority of trade unions at present do not require their members to contribute to their provident schemes as a condition of membership. Such schemes are, I think, normally optional, and trade unions seem quite able to cope satisfactorily at the moment with two classes of members, those who contribute to the provident funds and those who do not. Be that as it may, I see no reason why a union should not have such a rule as that to which I have referred if for some reason it wanted to do so.

Mr. C. Pannell: The right hon. Gentleman is advancing the argument that unions can separate their friendly society functions now. That is true. But take the case in point, which I know best. Section one membership has to be complete membership. It has to be. The sections three, four, five membership does not carry the same prestige as that


of trade unions. I have known an admiral boast about his membership of my union—under section one; but he could not belong under any other.

Mr. Carr: I have just said that I see no reason why a trade union, if it forms a separate friendly society, should not have a linking rule of the kind I have mentioned. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be fair enough to admit that the point he has made was not part of the assurance which I gave the House on 23rd March. Nevertheless, I see no reason why such a linking rule should not be made.
I would add the fact that the friendly society must be a separate organisation—as it must, technically—but that does not mean that it cannot have any link with a trade union in respect of those who govern it and in respect of control of its funds. Certainly, the trade union itself could not run the friendly society as a trade union, but if the friendly society has a substantial common membership with the trade union—which, after all, is precisely the kind of circumstance we are envisaging—there is no reason why persons who have been elected to the governing body of the trade union could not be elected by members of the friendly society to equivalent governing posts in the friendly society. After all, they will be the same people choosing in both cases.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: This is a very important point which the right hon. Gentleman is now enunciating, but is it true? Suppose a friendly society fund has the right to elect a totally different leadership from that running the union. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that both ballots should be free to elect different leaderships one in contradiction of the other?

Mr. Carr: I do not really see that that would be shocking if that were so. No part of the assurance I gave would affect it in that way. There would be nothing in that to prevent members of a trade union from carrying on provident activities which they are at present carrying on. If they choose—I think it unlikely, but presumably they will do it if they have good reason—to have different numbers of their members to run the provident side of their activity, that is

something that they must be free to do. But I do not see why they should do it.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Atkinson: The leadership of the trade union is responsible for the investment of its funds and the return that it requires from its property. These funds would be handed over to possibly a totally different leadership, and therefore, there could be a contradictory arrangement within the same organisation arising from a totally different leadership being elected to administer the investment policies being pursued by a different executive.

Mr. Carr: I made it clear on 23rd March that of course they must be separated. It is no part of our intention, and I have never suggested that it is, that in some way specially protected provident funds should all be mixed up with the industrial relations fighting funds of an unregistered organisation of workers. Nothing I have ever said could conceivably have been taken to suggest that I have anything like that in mind. The assurance which I gave, and which I stand by, is that it should be possible for a union which decides not to register under the new scheme of registration to take measures without insuperable difficulty to enable it both to protect its present provident funds and continue its provident fund activities.
As I said in March, the way to do this is by setting up a separate friendly society. That was my assurance. The argument we have had to meet is the suggestion that, contrary to the advice I was given, it would not be possible to do this, that there would be insuperable difficulties. That is the charge which has been made against me and that is the charge which I am answering, so do not let us get confused. I am not trying to deal with the general dislike of the hon. Members opposite to the whole question of registration. What I am answering, and answering categorically, is the charge that I was wrong when I assured the House in March that provident funds and provident activities could be protected by transferring to a separate friendly society. I am not saying that this is something the unions want to do, but it is something that they could do. I am defending that assurance on the ground that it is possible to do it. I am not presenting it to the House as something which these


organisations would wish to do, but I am saying, just as I said in March, that it is something they can do. I will go on to deal with the difficulties which were put up against the possibility of doing what I said.

Mr. Atkinson: This is an extremely important aspect of the whole business of registration. Can we take it, from what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, in relation to what he told us on 23rd March, that the Registrar will require the separation of friendly society funds from union funds if registration is to be allowed? The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Registrar will require a separation of these two things; at least, in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, the Registrar could insist upon the separation of friendly society funds from the rest. On the other hand, if a union does not register, the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing that the only way possible for it to continue to receive benefit from income tax allowances or concessions is to have possibly two executives controlling its two functions.

Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is putting what I said the other way round. If unions register under the new Bill they will be able to continue, as I understand it, as they are at the moment. What I was saying, repeating what I said two months ago, was that when we were talking about how we might protect the provident activities and provident funds of unions which chose not to register they would have to separate those provident funds. If any hon. Member refers to the HANSARD of 23rd March he will see that that is what I was saying.
I have now dealt with the first major difficulty put forward in the legal advice to the T.U.C. on the ground that there was an insuperable difficulty in doing what I suggested should be done on 23rd March.
The second major point of difficulty from this advice was that a friendly society set up by the members of the trade union would not be able to be financed by a transfer of funds from the trade union on the ground that Section 8 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, requires that the benefit paid by the society must be provided by voluntary

subscription of the members. However, what that section actually provides is that benefits should be provided
by voluntary subscription of the members thereof"—
and then come the important words
with or without the aid of donations.
This specific reference to donations in our view would enable a friendly society to accept the funds initially transferred to it from the trade union without jeopardising its status as a friendly society. There is no doubt that thereafter the friendly society could not be financed solely by donations from the union, but provided that subscriptions to friendly societies were payable by its members the society would be able to receive further donations from the unions if this were thought necessary or desirable. That was the other major difficulty, and we are convinced that is not an insuperable one.
Another point, though less important, related to the differences in the range of benefits available to members of friendly societies compared with those for which a trade union may obtain tax relief under Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970. The only differences suggested in the advice received by the T.U.C. which might be significant is that benefits provided by a friendly society must be
for the relief or maintenance of the members or of their dependants
whereas trade unions may provide benefit to the sick, injured or unemployed members without any similar qualification.
The Registrar of Friendly Societies has stated that he does not share the view that the words
relief or maintenance of the members
imply that a claimant for benefit from the funds of a friendly society must be in poverty or need. In fact, he tells us that friendly societies have always paid benefit to their members when sick irrespective of any question of need, and in practice there will be no difference in this respect from the position adopted by trade unions.
Thus, having examined the legal submission fully and in detail, I am satisfied that it has not been shown that there are technical, legal and constitutional difficulties which would prevent a trade union continuing its provident activities by the setting-up of a friendly society.
It must be within the knowledge of many hon. Members, though it may be of interest to remind the House as a whole, that there are two well known unions, N.A.L.G.O. and the National Union of Teachers, which already have separate friendly societies, the condition of membership of which is that the would-be member of the friendly society has also to be a member of the respective union. There are at least two cases—I believe I could find more—of unions which have already done what I am proposing they could do if they wished.
I did not say last March that this was something which a union would want to do, but I gave an assurance that it was something which it could do, and that I genuinely believe to be so. I am convinced that it is so. The difficulties which have been put forward have been closely examined, and I believe that the answers which I have given tonight are firm and definitive answers to the difficulties which have been advanced. I stand by my assurance, and I believe that it will prove to be correct.

Mrs. Castle: By leave of the House, I should like to comment on what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
He has not advanced the argument any further; nor has he answered the points which I raised. He has merely repeated at length the very arguments about detailed questions on the Friendly Societies Act which were put forward by the Lord Chancellor in the other place, that is, the arguments which I said I would spare the House when I spoke earlier because they were irrelevant to my main argument. Those arguments were irrelevant, first, because they represented only one legal opinon, the opinion which the Lord Chancellor was giving to the other place, and that was not even his opinion. He frankly admitted that he was basing his legal analysis on the Solicitor-General's point of view. It was in that context that the Lord Chancellor made the observation which I quoted earlier:
… although I belong to a profession where we have to acknowledge that legal advice is not infallible, I know of no particular reason to believe that the Solicitor-General is wrong in this case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th July, 1971; Vol. 322, c. 915.]
The fact that the Lord Chancellor does not know of any particular reason to

doubt the Solicitor-General's advice does not require us in the House of Commons to take the hon. and learned Gentleman's word as holy writ. When I am advised that learned counsel who have to give detailed consideration to this problem for the T.U.C. come to a view different from that of the Solicitor-General, I am, to say the least, entitled to say that the legal arguments are not proved.
The Secretary of State says that he stands by his view that there is no insuperable difficulty to the separation of the provident funds of a trade union from its other funds so as to continue to qualify for tax relief. If there really were no insuperable difficulty, why should trade unions which are determined not to register not take the steps which he says are not insuperably difficult? They stand to lose money if they do not. Why on earth should trade unions which are anxious to persuade their members to endorse their decisions not to register then say: "We are sorry, but, on careful examination of the situation, we find that if we do not register we lose this tax relief because it is impossible for us to separate our provident funds in this way"?
Who is the judge of the insuperability of the difficulties in this situation?—not the facile and plausible Secretary of State but the trade union movement, which has its back to the wall.
The right hon. Gentleman has made no attempt to answer the points which Lord Drumalbyn made in his letter to Lord Diamond about the technical difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated that he saw no technical difficulties. Let me remind him of what Lord Drumalbyn said:
At the very least it seems probable that the consent of members to major changes in union rules would be needed, and in some cases it seems quite possible that complex financial and actuarial questions might arise over the division of union funds and assets
in the way the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting. All I can say is that if complex financial and actuarial difficulties are not technical difficulties—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Housing Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mrs. Castle: I repeat, if these are not technical difficulties of the kind to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in

his Committee stage speech, words on the Bill have lost all meaning.

Therefore, we on this side say that the Government have once again demonstrated that when it comes to a question of trade union rights, they do not give a damn. They will hide behind facile arguments and then, whatever difficulties we explain to the Secretary of State, simply brush them aside. For these reasons, I call upon my hon. Friends to divide the House.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 223.

Division No. 465.]
AYES
[10.1 p.m.


Adley, Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Hayhoe, Barney


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dean, Paul
Hicks, Robert


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Higgins, Terence, L.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Dixon, Piers
Hiley, Joseph


Atkins, Humphrey
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Awdry, Daniel
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Drayson, G. B.
Holt, Miss Mary


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hordern, Peter


Balniel, Lord
Dykes, Hugh
Hornby, Richard


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Batsford, Brian
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Eyre, Reginald
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bell, Ronald
Farr, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fell, Anthony
Hunt, John


Benyon, W.
Fenner, Mr. Peggy
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fidler, Michael
Iremonger, T. L.


Biffen, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
James, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Jessel, Toby


Blaker, Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jopling, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Fortescue, Tim
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Body, Richard
Foster, Sir John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Boscawen, Robert
Fowler, Norman
Kilfedder, James


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fox, Marcus
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bowden, Andrew
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Kinsey, J. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fry, Peter
Kirk, Peter


Braine, Bernard
Gardner, Edward
Knox, David


Bray, Ronald
Gibson-Watt, David
Lambton, Antony


Brewis, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lane, David


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Le Marchant, Spencer


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Goodhart, Philip
Longden, Gilbert


Bryan, Paul
Gorst, John
Loveridge, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Gower, Raymond
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Buck, Antony
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
MacArthur, Ian


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gray, Hamish
McCrindle, R. A.


Burden, F. A.
Green, Alan
McLaren, Martin


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Grieve, Percy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Carlisle, Mark
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McMaster, Stanley


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Grylls, Michael
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Channon, Paul
Glimmer, Selwyn
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Gurden, Harold
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maddan, Martin


Churchill, W. S.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marten, Neil


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mather, Carol


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Angus


Clegg, Walter
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mawby, Ray


Cockeram, Eric
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Coombs, Derek
Haselhurst, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cormack, Patrick
Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Costain, A. P.
Havers, Michael
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Critchley, Julian
Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Crouch, David
Hay, John
Moate, Roger


Curran, Charles

Money, Ernle


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Monks, Mrs. Connie




Monro, Hector
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Montgomery, Fergus
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


More, Jasper
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tilney, John


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Rost, Peter
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Trew, Peter


Mudd, David
Scott, Nicholas
Tugendhat, Christopher


Murton, Oscar
Scott-Hopkins, James
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Neave, Airey
Sharples, Richard
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Normanton, Tom
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Nott, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Onslow, Cranley
Simeons, Charles
Waddington, David


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Sinclair, Sir George
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Osborn, John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Soref, Harold
Wall, Patrick


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Speed, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Spence, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Peel, John
Sproat, Iain
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Percival, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Pink, R, Bonner
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Pounder, Rafton
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stokes, John
Wilkinson, John


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M, L.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Sutcliffe, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Tapsell, Peter
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Redmond, Robert
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Woodnutt, Mark


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Worsley, Marcus


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tebbit, Norman



Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Temple, John M.



Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Ridsdale, Julian

Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Albu, Austen
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Delargy, H. J.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Allen, Scholefield
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Huckfield, Leslie


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Ashton, Joe
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Atkinson, Norman
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Driberg, Tom
Hunter, Adam


Barnett, Joel
Duffy, A. E. P.
Janner, Greville


Beaney, Alan
Dunnett, Jack
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Eadie, Alex
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Edelman, Maurice
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bidwell, Sydney
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Bishop, E. S.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
John, Brynmor


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ellis, Tom
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
English, Michael
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Booth, Albert
Evans, Fred
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Bradley, Tom
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Buchan, Norman
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Judd, Frank


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Foley, Maurice
Kaufman, Gerald


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Foot, Michael
Kolley, Richard


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Ford, Ben
Kinnock, Neil


Cant, R. B.
Forrester, John
Lambie, David


Carmichael, Neil
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Latham, Arthur


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Freeson, Reginald
Lawson, George


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Leadbitter, Ted


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Garrett, W. E.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cohen, Stanley
Gilbert, Dr. John
Leonard, Dick


Coleman, Donald
Golding, John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)


Conlan, Bernard
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gourlay, Harry
Lipton, Marcus


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Loughlin, Charles


Crawshaw, Richard
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Cronin, John
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hamilton, Jams (Bothwell)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McBride, Neil


Dalyell, Tam
Hardy, Peter
McCartney, Hugh


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Harper, John
McGuire, Michael


Davidson, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mackie, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hattersley, Roy
Mackintosh, John P.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Maclennan, Robert


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydfil)
Heffer, Eric S.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Horam, John
McNamara, J. Kevin


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)




Marks, Kenneth







Marquand, David
Pentland, Norman
Strang, Gavin


Marsden, F.
Perry, Ernest G.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Meacher, Michael
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Prescott, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mendelson, John
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Millan, Bruce
Probert, Arthur
Tinn, James


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Tomney, Frank


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Torney, Tom


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Tuck, Raphael


Molloy, William
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Urwin, T. D.


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Varley, Eric G.


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Roper, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rose, Paul B.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Rt. Hon. John (Aberavon)
Sandelson, Neville
Wallace, George


Moyle, Roland
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Watkins, David


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Weitzman, David


Murray, Ronald King
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Whitehead, Phillip


Ogden, Eric
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


O'Halloran, Michael
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


O'Malley, Brian
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Oram, Bert
Small, William
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Orme, Stanley
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Oswald, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel
Woof, Robert


Paget, R. T.
Spriggs, Leslie



Palmer, Arthur
Stallard, A. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Mr. William Hamling.


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John



Pendry, Tom

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 130, in page 50, line 14, leave out from "temporary" to "is" in line 22 and insert:
whose membership consists wholly or mainly—

(a) of constituent or affiliated organisations each of which either fulfils the conditions specified in subsection (1)(a) of this section or is an organisation for the time being entered in the special register to be maintained under the following provisions of this Part of this Act, or itself consists wholly or mainly of constituent or affiliated organisations which fulfil those conditions or are for the time being entered in that register, or
(b) of representatives of such constituent or affiliated organisations as are mentioned in the preceding paragraph,

and which (in either case)".

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It may be for the convenience of the House if with this Amendment we take Lords Amendment No. 131, in Clause 60, page 51, line 3, leave out from beginning to "is" in line 11 and insert:
whose membership consists wholly or mainly—

(a) of constituent or affiliated organisations each of which fulfils the conditions specified in subsection (1)(a) of this section or itself consists wholly or mainly of constituent or affiliated organisations which fulfil those conditions, or
(b) of representatives of such constituent or affiliated organisations as are mentioned in the preceding paragraph,

and which (in either case)".

These Amendments relate to the same point. Amendment No. 130 relates to a federation of workers' organisations and Amendment No. 131 to a federation of employers' organisations.

Amendment No. 130 makes one change relating to a federation of workers' organisations only. The effect of that change is to allow a federation of workers' organisations to include among its membership not only workers' organisations as such but organisations which are registered on the special register. In other words, a federation can include the two different kinds of workers' organisation, whether registered on the ordinary register or on the special register.

The other change which is made, in respect of both federations of workers'

organisations and federations of employers' organisations, is of a slightly different kind, although technical. As Clause 59 stands, a federation of workers' organisations is something which consists wholly or mainly of organisations. Defined in that way it could include an amalgam or merger of organisations whose membership was made up of individual members. In other words, it would be not a true federation of organisations but an amalgam of organisations composed of individuals. The effect of the change, which is to substitute an organisation
' whose membership consists wholly or mainly—

(a) of constituent or affiliated organisations '".

is to make it plain that the federation has to be a true federation of organisations made up of organisations whose membership consists of organisations rather than one whose membership consists of ordinary members. Exactly the same change is made by Amendment No. 131 which refers to a federation of employers' organisations.

It is upon that basis that I commend the Amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 61

APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF REGISTRAR AND ASSISTANT REGISTRARS

Lords Amendment: No. 132, in page 51, line 27, leave out subsection (2).

10.15 p.m.

Mr. R. Carr: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps it will be convenient if, with this Amendment, we take Lords Amendment No. 133, in page 51, line 36, leave out subsection (4).
I can briefly summarise the purpose of these Amendments. The Bill originally laid down that the registrars had to be legally qualified. While it is desirable that legal expertise should be available to registrars, it is not essential that the registrars themselves should be legally


qualified. Other qualifications, such as a knowledge of industrial relations and so forth, are just as important.

The Amendments will make it easier to make the most appropriate appointments in the future. Although the registrars will take over certain adjudicatory functions from the present registrars of friendly societies, these will henceforth be subject to the new right of appeal to the Industrial Court, and that new right of appeal over adjudicated decisions by the registrars seems to us to remove the last major obstacle of principle which prevented the registrars themselves from being other than legally qualified. Therefore, we believe it is right that the Bill should provide that the registrars, while they could be legally qualified, need not have to be.

Mr. John Fraser: The Bill is likely to have the Royal Assent if it goes through tonight. Can the right hon. Gentleman say who the registrars will be?

Mr. Carr: I certainly cannot do any such thing.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 63

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR ORGANISATIONS OF WORKERS

Lords Amendment: No. 134, in page 53, line 12, leave out "casting his vote" and insert "voting".

Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment. It rephrases part of Clause 63(6) which establishes the right of members of an organisation of workers to vote "without interference or constraint". Although we did not think that the present drafting of the subsection would lead to serious difficulties of interpretation, we had no objection to the revised drafting which was suggested by Lord Diamond in another place. We certainly fully intend that the opportunity to vote without interference or constraint should be given whatever method of voting is used, whether by

ballot, a show of hands or by any other method. If the term "casting his vote" could be taken to refer only to voting in a ballot, we are glad to remove any doubt in this matter by replacing it with the word "voting.".

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 135, page 53, line 23, leave out from "to" to end of line 26 and insert—
take part in a strike which the organisation, or any other person, has called, organised, procured or financed otherwise than in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, or in such circumstances as, in accordance with any provision of this Act, to constitute an unfair industrial practice on the part of the organisation or of that person, or
(c) to take part in any irregular industrial action short of a strike which the organisation, or any other person, has organised, procured or financed as mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection".

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It may be convenient to the House if with this Amendment we take the following Lords Amendments:

No. 278, in page 118, line 9, after first "a" insert "concerted",

No. 279, in line 10, leave out "which is concerted by them", and No. 280, in line 12, at end insert:
whether (in the case of all or any of those workers) the stoppage is or is not in breach of their terms and conditions of employment, and whether it is carried out during, or on the termination of, their employment".

It is more convenient to start with an explanation of Amendments Nos. 278, 279 and 280. These are all Amendments to the definition Clause, Clause 158. They are Amendments to the definition of "a strike". Amendments Nos. 278 and 279 have the effect of removing from that definition the phrase
which is concerted by them
and replacing it by the simple adjective "concerted". It has to be a concerted stoppage of work by a group of workers.

Amendment No. 280 adds at the end of the definition:
whether (in the case of all or any of those workers) the stoppage is or is not in breach of their terms and condidtions of employment, and whether it is carried out during, or on the termination of, their employment".

The effect of those two definitions is to remove the rather odd necessity for


demonstrating by whom the stoppage was concerted and to make it plain that a concerted stoppage of a group of workers
in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute
at whatever point of time it occurs, and whatever the circumstances, provided it is a concerted, collective action, amounts to a strike in the context of the legislation.

On that footing, I come back to the earlier Amendment, No. 135, which is probably the most important. It applies to Clause 63, which contains the guiding principles for workers' and ememployers' organisations. Subsection (7) provides that no member of the organisation should be subject to any unfair disciplinary action, in particular because of his refusing or failing to take any action which would constitute an unfair industrial practice. So far, the matter is unchanged. The provision would have made it unfair for an organisation to discipline a member for declining to take action which would itself be unfair, which meant declining to induce, call or procure a strike or lock-out in certain circumstances. That part is unchanged.

Paragraph (b) provided that no action should be taken against a member who refused or failed to participate in an unfair practice. That probably added nothing to paragraph (a). Someone participating in an action would still be participating in the calling, inducing or procuring. The intention was to make it unfair for an organisation to discipline someone for refusing or failing to take part in a strike or lock-out called by the organisation if it was itself an unfair industrial practice.

The intention is clear and is now set out in Amendment No. 135. It becomes an unfair practice for an organisation to take disciplinary action against a member who has refused or failed to take part in a strike which the organisation or any other person has called, organised, procured or financed, and which amounts to an unfair industrial practice. Similarly, it is unfair to discipline someone for refusing or failing to take part in other irregular industrial actions of the same kind. The other point which the Amendment makes clear is that it will be unfair for an organisation to discipline a member who has refused or failed to take part in a strike or irregular industrial action organised otherwise than in

contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute; in other words, a refusal to take part in an industrial action directed towards political or other non-industrial ends.

If someone declines and is thereafter disciplined, he can complain of an unfair industrial practice. It is probable that such action would be regarded as con trary to common law now in any event, but it was urged upon the Government in another place that the matter should be set beyond doubt, that it was unfair for a worker to be disciplined for re fusing to take part in a political strike. The urging in that direction came from, among others, members of the Liberal Party in another place. At least one member of the Labour Party went on record as saying that nobody on his side of the Committee supported poli tical strikes—

Mr. Orme: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman continues, may I ask him, as this proposal was made in another place without having first been discussed in any way in Committee in this House, what action in the country motivated the Government along these lines?

The Solicitor-General: I do not think I can, should or need identify any action that motivated it. [Interruption.] It is almost certainly the position that political strikes and disciplinary action taken against someone for declining to take part in a political strike are not capable of being upheld at common law.

Mr. Orme: Then why make the Amendment?

The Solicitor-General: But the matter is in some doubt. What is not in doubt is the general feeling of the overwhelming majority of people that it is wrong and unfair for workers to be disciplined for declining to support a political strike.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. and learned Gentleman said, I think, inadvertently, that political strikes and action taken against a person participating in them are not against the common law. Did he, perhaps inadvertently, make a slip there?

The Solicitor-General: I said the probability was that action taken against someone for not taking part in a political


strike was contrary to the common law. I do not want to go further than that on this point because I understand that there may be a case coming before the courts in which that point will be decided.
This point could be argued in many different ways. The argument has been conducted by reference to the General Strike, and the view of Lord Simon is on the record, as are the views of Professor Goodhart and Sir Stafford Cripps. As I say, I do not want to say more on this point because the matter may be coming before the courts.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: What will be the position if the reverse happens—for example, when dockers from the T. & G.W.U. took part in an unofficial march in support of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) a couple of years ago and were reprimanded by the executive of their union? This is exactly the reverse of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has been discussing. If their union disciplined them for doing that, would that constitute an unfair industrial practice?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman's question is in two halves. He asks, first, whether it would be an unfair industrial practice. The answer is "possibly not" in the present state of the law. As for the position under the Bill, if the union were taking or projecting disciplinary action against someone for taking part in a political strike, it would not then be disciplining someone for refusing or failing to take part in it. It would, therefore, be doing exactly the opposite of that prescribed in the Bill. So the answer to his question is that it would not be an unfair industrial practice.
I suggest that the Amendment represents the desire and wish of the overwhelming majority of fair-minded people that it is not right for someone who declines to take part in industrial action on the instructions of an organisation in pursuit of an objective to be disciplined for his failure to take part in that action. It is to make that clear in response to representations from many parties and people, in line with the Opposition in another place—[Interruption.]—with at least one member of the Labour Opposition in another place—and with the general wish of the country, and I therefore

commend the Amendment to the House.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Heffer: We believe this to be a curious and very dangerous Amendment. It was never introduced, or even proposed to be introduced, in this House, but was inserted on the fifth day of the Report stage in another place. On the surface, as one listens to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, it appears, as does so much of the Bill, to be reasonable. Its apparent object, as he said, is to safeguard the worker from any discipline by his organisation in the event of that organisation, or a group of individuals, organising, procuring or financing a strike other than as industrial action.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has to some extent been torpedoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), from whose first-class question we discovered that if the dockers, or anyone else, act contrary to their union in a political action and are disciplined by their union for so doing, that is not an unfair industrial practice, but that if it goes the other way, and the organisation determines, or a group of individuals determines and the union backs them at some stage, to discipline a member who fails to become involved that is an unfair industrial practice. We all know that this hits at political strikes of any kind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Orme) asked why this provision was introduced on the fifth day day of the Report stage in another place, but I think that the reason is pretty clear. We had a situation where a number of unions—some of the printing unions, the A.U.E.W., the boilermakers, and others—called out their members not in a continuous strike but as a protest against the Bill. Contrary to what many people believe, the Transport and General Workers Union did not call out its members, but said that if those members acted it would back them. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that that day of protest did not lead to any disciplinary action by the unions against any worker who did not take part.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Prime Minister is on strike today, whether official or unofficial, for he has not been


here all day? I think that he is sailing on "Morning Cloud.".

Mr. Heffer: One thing is quite clear; the Prime Minister has not gone to meet the workers at U.C.S. If he had, he would not have received the support which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had when he met the U.C.S. workers and discussed their problems with them.
The question is whether that day of protest was an industrial or political action. There is no doubt that that is arguable, but that illustrates that it is not easy to define the line between political and industrial action. There is a good argument for saying that any legislation which directly affects the conditions of employment of workers, in addition to being a political act, is basically an industrial act. It is equally true that a struggle against legislation concerned with conditions of employment, and sometimes wages, is equally an industrial action, even though directed against the Government.
That clearly brings out the dangers of the State becoming involved in matters which should be left to voluntary agreement between employers and trade unions. Once the State begins to become involved in the regulation of conditions of employment and the rules of trade unions, saying that unions must have a licence to operate, such as registration, there is a thin dividing line between industrial and political action.
Communist and Fascist countries have experience of the regulation of the conditions of workers by the State. Strikes become illegal and, by its very nature, every strike becomes a political strike, whether intended or not. Even the smallest industrial action begins as an economic struggle and ends as a political strike. Defining the difference between political and industrial action is much more complicated than hon. Members opposite even begin to think.
The Lords Amendment does not make political strikes illegal and no one suggests that it does, but it is the thin end of the wedge—as, indeed, is the whole Bill—for the State regulation of trade unions. If a trade union does not register, it will suffer a series of disabilities which do not now exist.
The Government are embarking upon dangerous seas over this question of

political strikes. We have already seen that because of the Government's action in introducing the Bill workers have become involved in industrial action which the Government have immediately said was political. We shall see more of this once the Bill becomes an Act and is operating. No doubt that is what is intended. There could be a situation six months from now when a flashpoint occurs and workers take industrial action against this Measure and become involved in unfair industrial practices. The argument will be that it is political action, and the Government will seek to use this Amendment and also seek to widen the whole issue.

In another place my noble Friend, Lord Diamond, said of this Amendment;
This is a most important Amendment which affects the liberty of the subject and goes beyond the purpose of this Bill. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th July 1971; Vol. 321, c. 1169.]
I think that he is absolutely right. Democracy is something more than elections every five years, something more than elections to local authorities. It is the involvement of the mass of the people at all levels in society. We could easily reach a situation in which workers take some industrial action to press some point of view upon their elected representatives. Instead of saying that the people should be involved in the democratic process, the answer of the Government would be that it was a political move and ought not to be allowed. This Amendment is the first step in making all political strikes illegal. It is the first shot in a campaign which will grow over the years. I want to draw attention to the present situation. I do not think that many people know of this but the trade union movement has long argued that in certain circumstances it is the right of workers to withdraw their labour, to use their industrial strength to influence political decisions. That is not my statement; it is a rule of the Trades Union Congress. I will read out the applicable rule.

Rule 8 (k) says:
In order that the Trade Union movement may do everything which lies in its power to prevent future wars, the General Council shall, in the event of there being a danger of an outbreak of war, call a special Congress to decide on industrial action, such Congress to be called, if possible, before war is declared.


That is the rule of the Trades Union Congress and it has existed for 50 years. Subsection (d) says:
They shall promote common action by the trade union movement on general questions, such as wages and hours of labour, and any matter of general concern that may arise between trade unions and trade unions, or between employers and trade unions or between the Trade Union movement and the Government, and shall have power to assist any union which is attacked on any vital question of trade union principle.

Rule 8 (f) states:
They shall also enter into relations with the Trade Union and Labour movements in other countries with a view to securing united action.

10.45 p.m.

Rules which have existed in the T.U.C. for 50 years are not lightly used. The T.U.C. like my party, is dedicated to the principles of political democracy. We believe that we should change Governments by politically democratic methods. But we recognise that in certain special circumstances the need for trade unions to act in an industrial way for political purposes can arise. There are examples of this.

In 1920 the dockers refused to load arms on the "Jolly George" to be used against Soviet Russia. I can bring matters nearer home. The dockers of Liverpool refused to load a ship going to Nigeria because they thought that the cargo would be used against the Biafran people. Recently, the shipyard workers in Belfast marched, quite wrongly in my opinion, from the shipyards to Unionist headquarters demanding action to put the I.R.A. behind bars, and in the process a number of people who may have sympathised with the I.R.A. or been pro-Catholic were intimidated by other sections of the workers involved.

Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Gentleman gave the example of dockers refusing to load a ship because of their belief in the Biafran cause. Since that was an issue on which very strong feelings were held about both sides, it is possible that some members of the union in question felt very strongly about the other side's cause. If it was perfectly right for those who believed strongly in the Biafran cause to do what they did, would it have been right to have disciplined those who believed in the opposite side's cause for refusing to join in?

Mr. Heffer: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point, because it refers to the point that I intended to make—that this is a much more complex issue than it would appear to be from the black and white terms used by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, who do not even begin to understand the complexities of industrial life and political struggle in relation to industrial events. It is up to the Government to give us chapter and verse showing where the trade unions have disciplined the workers for involving themselves in political action. They cannot give chapter and verse.
The Government are proceeding along an extremely dangerous course. How would they deal with the complex situation which has developed on Upper Clyde where the workers have taken a form of political action by industrial means? We do not know the outcome. This is not a strike. The men are working. It may well be that they should have been sacked. This is a peculiar new situation. All sorts of developments can take place in the industrial and political world. Hon. Members opposite need to be very careful.

Mr. Loughlin: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised the question of the U.C.S. I wanted to ask the Solicitor-General to give some information in connection with paragraph (c) in this Amendment, but he scuttled to his seat. There are the words:
to take part in any irregular industrial action".
That is not defined, but it could apply to the present situation in the U.C.S. yards.

Mr. Heffer: Yes, that is industrial action. If certain workers decided that they did not want to involve themselves in it and disobeyed the trade union, refused to be involved and were brought before a disciplinary committee, what would be the position under this Bill? One has only to look at these possibilities to see the absurdity into which the Government are getting.
I was pleased to read on the tapes tonight that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said on behalf of the British Labour movement that he is up on Clydeside to associate us with the shipbuilding workers in the right to work. Although this Amendment does not make political strikes illegal—

Mr. Orme: Not yet.

Mr. Heffer: —the danger is that it is the first step. It means that the Govern-men are moving in the direction of building a totalitarian State. [HON. MEMBERS: ["Oh!"] Oh, yes; the corporate State is inherent in this document. It goes much beyond the Taft-Hartley Act; it is not just American law but much more. It is typical class legislation. It is designed as part of the overall class strategy that this Government are adopting in their fight against the British working people. It is no good hon. Members opposite suggesting that that is not so. This is one prong of the attack. Attacks are being made on thinks like school meals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] Yes, that affects our people, my class. It may not affect your class, but it affects my class.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member must remember that I am classless.

Mr. Heffer: I am very glad to hear it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because some hon. Members opposite are not classless.
Attacks of this sort being made on ordinary working-class people; the three working days in connection with sickness benefit and short-term benefits being removed from those in short-term unemployment.
This Government are a vile Government which have brought in a vile Bill. I put on record that when the Labour Party gets returned to power we shall remove this Bill from the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Bidwell: The Solicitor-General may recall that some time ago in these proceedings I asked him whether the political strike was outlawed under the Bill. He had to admit that as such it is not outlawed, but that is not to say that he would not like to outlaw it by means of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has said, the Bill takes a dangerous step towards that concept.
The fabric of the Bill should be seen, particularly by my hon. Friends who have not been so heavily involved in the detail of this massive, revolutionary incursion of law into industrial relations in the ludicrous situation where the right to strike is considerably diminished—certainly the right to strike unofficially

—which has always been regarded as a cherished freedom of trade unionists because of the cumbersome machinery, which has not been of their choosing but has been mostly arranged by employers through the passage of history and needs considerable improvement. If we had before us that kind of proposal, we would consider rationally the way in which State agencies or courts and how the idea of the C.I.R. could be used in order to assist the process of building the classless society which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, claim you seek to belong to.
This Amendment arises from the single-day stoppages which were but veritable skirmishes compared with what is the likely outcome of the Bill, allied to the other measures the Government are taking in their attack on the people's social services which have been so carefully built up since the war. The purpose has been exploded by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) in reference to the case of the dockers who marched to Parliament. This was not the first time that matter had been raised in the House; I raised it myself on another occasion. As far as we are concerned, this is not an argument about whether it is nice or nasty to discipline workers who refuse to take part in an industrial action or a particular action which goes beyond what can be described in the Bill, without this Amendment, as an "industrial dispute". That is not what the argument is about. It is not about the morals of the situation.
As much as I detested the outbreak of racialism evidenced by the march of the Smithfield meat porters and the 200 dockers from the Royal Docks, I would not have proposed that the Transport and General Workers' Union, of which I am a member, should take disciplinary action against those workers. I preferred a more rational approach, and it is beginning to pay off because when we had another racialist outburst by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—pushed out by Tory Central Office, as most of his speeches are, whether they on this tack or any other, whether they be to a junior chamber of commerce or to the old ladies of Wolverhampton or some other meeting—there was not another march.
The Amendment must be seen in the light of what is practicable. How is it supposed to put things right? This is the wrong way to do it. It reminds one of the old saying, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread", because this is purely a question of the various organisations and the methods they have for disciplining their own members. The trade union movement responded to the national demonstration with mixed feelings. In some establishments, only a few stopped work; some of those who did stayed at home while others turned up for the outdoor demonstrations. At other establishments, there was complete or almost complete stoppage of work. Many workers did not join in what was hardly an official strike or national political demonstration. Many people participated at district level. One has to see the reality of this, that it is much better to leave the situation as it is.
11.0 p.m.
The characteristic of the British trade union movement is evidenced by the mighty T.U.C. peaceful demonstration, the mightiest outdoor demonstration within our memory. It was amazing in view of the tremendous number who came into the sunshine of Hyde Park and marched to Trafalgar Square.
When we go to the earlier pages of trade union history, to the 1926 General Strike and the vicious anti-trade union Measure which came out of it—the Trade Disputes Act, 1927—that situation was not characterised at all by the violence we have seen in other countries but it is to that that the Solicitor-General has gone for guidance in trying to make changes in industrial relations.
That is why at this eleventh hour before this Measure becomes law, we sound notes of warning. This is not just a move towards changes; it is not a cautious step, but a gigantic leap—a leap into the darkness.
I do not relish this, but if shop stewards and shop-floor workers feel that normal and traditional means of dealing with matters of discipline of their fellow workers cannot be used and that they cannot demonstrate peacefully in the manner to which they have been accustomed about dangerous working conditions, or about a massive rise in the

cost of living and their inability to keep pace with it, many will—whether it is correct or not and whether or not they can read this Bill, soon to be enacted—reach for other means of struggle. Those will not be the usual industrial practices, like the go-slow or the work-to-rule. I do not know how the Government, the C.I.R., and the Industrial Court will deal with workers for obeying the rule book. That is part of the imponderable.
I fear that we might go back to the days of the Luddites when the workers feared the machines. If it is the case that one would jeopardise one's family by engaging in a short-lived unofficial strike or unfair industrial practice, it might be easier to resort to other means. There are other means of stopping the industrial machine than walking outside the gate, and that is my genuine fear.
It is not possible to take the whole tradition of conventions and the enormous build-up which has taken place through the years and turn the system upside down overnight. The industrial situation cannot suddenly be guided into the paths laid down by these provisions.
As we on this side of the House—with our considerable fund of knowledge of industrial relations gained from our backgrounds before we came to this house—have looked at the provisions of this Bill to reveal the many holes that exist and have pointed to the yards of legal jargon in which the Bill is shrouded, the Solicitor-General has run around trying to stop up these gaps. Indeed, this very provision is another attempt to stop up a gap in the Bill. But it will not work.
If one looks at the matter in a humorous way—and it is difficult to do so since this is a serious subject—one might be better advised to go back to the workers and say "If in future you want to demonstrate against your employer, do not say you are demonstrating against the employer or are striking in connection with an industrial dispute. Say that you are striking because you do not like the Government." So far the political strike has not been caught by legislation. However, I would not put it past hon. Members opposite to come forward in future with some extra legislation to cope with such a situation. But, before that happens, the people will have spoken loudly on


many other matters, and the days of the present Government are numbered anyway.
The Conservatives thought they were on a winner and could win the middle ground of politics by bringing forward a Measure of this kind. But people make up their own minds on these matters and are showing what they feel in local elections and by-elections—as they will in the General Election, which will happen more quickly than many people expect, for a variety of reasons. The longer these debates go on, the more will the Government's failings be exposed.

Mr. Alex Eadie: The Solicitor-General said that an overwhelming majority of people desired to see these provisions on the Statute Book. That is an assertion, not a fact. This Government have made many political miscalculations. One outstanding miscalculation was that this Measure would mean a political bonanza in the winning of votes. But the Conservative record at the polls has clearly demonstrated how the Government have seriously miscalculated the effect of this Bill on the electorate.
This political miscalculation has spread to other matters. The right hon. Gentleman in his reply has a responsibility to explain the effect of this Amendment on the trade union movement. The unemployment figure in Scotland is now running at the disgraceful total of 134,000, a figure which has not been paralleled at this time of the year since pre-war days. The Scottish Trades Union Congress has decided to hold a special conference in August to discuss the problem of unemployment. No one can predict what that conference will decide, but, as their members are being subjected to political attack after political attack by the Government—school meals, school milk, unemployment among school leavers, and the rest—it may well be that the trade unions will determine that, in defence of their members and to demonstrate that the Government can no longer inflict the agony of unemployment on the Scottish people, they will take strike action.
What will be the effect of this Amendment in such circumstances? The Scottish Trades Union Congress is a very respectable body, with access to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister of every Government. If its members

decide to take industrial action, will it be illegal, and will they as a consequence be prosecuted?

Mr. R. Carr: The answer is "No". Nothing in the Amendment has anything to do with what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

Mr. Eadie: It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying "No." He knows what the implications of his Bill are and how members who do not take part in that industrial action will be affected. He cannot argue otherwise.

Mr. Carr: Can the hon. Gentleman point to any Clause which has the effect which he fears? He will find it impossible.

Mr. Eadie: I know the Bill, and I have taken part in debates on many of its provisions. We had a long discussion about the closed shop provision. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that will have no effect in relation to what I am suggesting? Of course it will.
I turn to the question of financial support. We have had references to the Upper Clyde shipbuilding workers. Is what they are doing now illegal? How is it affected by the Bill? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was up there today. The workers on the Clyde are conducting a sort of work-in, and one would hope that the proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition will not lead to serious industrial action as a result of what the Government are doing. But if it is the Government's policy to try to starve people into submission in spite of the constructive action which the Upper Clyde workers are taking, and if there were industrial action taken as a result, would the Transport and General Workers' Union and the National Union of Mineworkers be caught for financing a strike?
11.15 p.m.
The Secretary of State may not be aware that yesterday morning the Scottish Area of the National Union of Mine-workers donated £1,000 to the fight of the Upper Clyde shipbuilding workers. Will that be construed as the action of an organisation abetting and assisting the Upper Clyde shipbuilding workers if they should decide to come out on industrial


action? Finance is mentioned in the Clause.
The right hon. Gentleman should give us an answer, because the miners in Scotland are anxiously awaiting his verdict about the implementation of the Bill. Who will be prosecuted? Who will be affected? Will it be the miners' leaders or the miners' executive in Scotland who will be affected because they have donated £1,000 to the fight of the Upper Clyde shipbuilding workers? Will the Transport and General Workers' Union in Scotland be placed in a similar position? It is a ridiculous situation.
The slogan of the miners—indeed, of workers everywhere—concerning industrial disputes has always been, "If you injure one, you injure all." The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware whether the passing of the Bill on to the Statute Book means that not only a trade union, its leaders and members will be prosecuted but that other trade unionists and their leaders who give help and sustenance to their trade union brothers will be prosecuted.
If that should happen, the right hon. Gentleman and his Government will make the biggest blunder they have ever made. Their Bill will be a prescription not for industrial peace but for industrial anarchy, and instead of its helping and assisting the country, we shall be in for a long, hard, gruelling time.

Mr. Waddington: Some hon. Members opposite seem to have lost sight of the subject that we are supposed to be debating. As I understand it, we are not debating whether political strikes should or should not be lawful. We are debating the very different question whether a person who refuses to joint a strike which is avowedly political should be disciplined by his union.
We are debating a subject which has been debated, I am sorry to say, for very many hours already during the passage of the Bill. I remember speaking on this subject, and I merely repeat—

Mr. Heffer: The hon. and learned Member must not mislead the House. We have never had a discussion on political strikes on the Bill in this House because that subject was not introduced into the Bill until the fifth day of the Report stage

in the House of Lords. It was not even done as an Amendment by the Government. Therefore, to say that we have discussed it in this House is totally untrue.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Member cannot have been listening to the argument I was advancing. We are not now discussing whether political strikes are lawful, because that is not the subject which is before the House. What hon. Members opposite have been discussing during the last few minutes is the very different subject, which I am prepared to discuss if hon. Members opposite are still prepared to discuss it, of whether members of unions should be disciplined by their unions if they refuse to take part in strikes which are avowedly political. This is a subject which has been debated for many hours during the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer indicated dissent.

Mr. Waddington: It is no use the hon. Member shaking his head—

Mr. Heffer: Do not lie.

Mr. Waddington: I remember making many speeches about it. I would merely remind—

Mr. Heffer: Just do not lie.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the House is entitled to expect better parliamentary manners from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Waddington: If the hon. Member will bear with me, I am sure that I am not misconstruing what hon. Members opposite have said during the last 10 minutes when I say that they have been arguing that it is an affront to the rights of the trade unions if they are forbidden and prohibited by law from disciplining members who refuse to take part in strikes which are avowedly political.
I merely remind hon. Gentlemen opposite of what has taken place over the last few months. It seems absolutely absurd that any hon. Member of this House should try to support the argument that a man who has joined a union in order that that union might look after his conditions of employment, his pay, and all other conditions of work should find that he is required by that union to go on strike in protest against


a political Measure, such as this Bill, of which he may be in favour.
I have mentioned in this House on many previous occasions that we know from our own experience that there are many perfectly loyal trade unionists who want to be members of and to take an active part in trade unions so that they may look after their pay and conditions of work, but find that those unions are obliging them to go on strike in protest against political measures, such as this Bill.
Some of the arguments which have been advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite have been bizarre in the extreme. At one stage the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who taxed me a few minutes ago over my argument, advanced, in quite lyrical language, an argument which I think takes some sustaining in today's political climate. He said that there was a marked absence of genuine trade union activity in Russia and in Fascist States. He talked of the evils of the corporate State, as if inviting us to assume that the antagonism towards the Bill of Messrs. Jones and Scanlon was due to their antagonism towards Communism.
We should keep our feet on the ground. Where is the great antagonism to the Bill coming from? It is coming from people like Mr. Jones and Mr. Scanlon who, to the best of my knowledge, until a few moments ago were members of the Communist Party. Yet the hon. Gentleman has the nerve—

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Waddington: Let me finish my sentence. Yet the hon. Gentleman has the neck to talk about the Bill being a move towards a corporate State. I think that this House is entitled to take note of the fact that many of the most vehement opponents of the Bill are—

Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waddington: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until I complete this argument. I think that hon. Members are entitled to take note of the fact that some of the most vehement opponents of the Bill are the most vehement exponents of the corporate State.

Mr. Rose: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman now withdraw his allegation that two highly respected trade union leaders in this country are members of the Communist Party? Is he aware that neither of them is a member of the Communist Party? Is he further aware that the argument advanced against the Bill by people such as Lord Robens is that it plays into the hands of those who want to use the trade union movement for other purposes? Will he now withdraw that allegation?

Mr. Waddington: I am certainly prepared to say, if such be the case, that neither of them is now a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. Rose: Jones never has been.

Mr. Waddington: But we know, as I have said, that some of the most vehement opponents of the Bill are the most vehement exponents of the corporate State. It is absurd for the hon. Member for Walton to advance as one argument against the Bill that if it becomes law we shall have taken one notable step towards the corporate State.
The Bill, to my mind, is a most remarkable advance towards greater freedom for the individual—[Interruption.] I cannot see how any right-minded person can seriously say that it is not a most marked advance towards greater freedom for the individual if, by passing legislation, we say that no man shall suffer disadvantage as a result of opposing a strike which is called for an avowedly political purpose; namely, to protest against a Measure passed by the democratically-elected representatives of the people.

Mr. Neil McBride: Listening to the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington), I was struck by the fact that he used the French maxim in the colonial days of "Divide and rule". May I remind him that the French lost an empire in the Far East, as his party will lose the next General Election.
I would not seek to interfere in any personal matter, but if I were associated with the legal profession my first maxim would be to check my facts before villifying members of the trade union movement. The Amendment is clearly directed against any trade union which may be involved in an industrial dispute with


political overtones. The Amendment is directed towards that end—a so-called political strike. For a long time the trade union movement has been an estate of the realm. It is inevitable, therefore, that in industrial stoppages we shall be more and more concerned with social, economic and political overtones.
This Amendment—I am speaking calmly but it is hard to keep emotion out of it—indicates the hatred of this Tory Government of the trade unions and their political associations, and for the Amendment the Government clearly have no mandate. The responsibility lies with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment who, despite his appearance of sweet reasonableness, is always able to follow the hard-line doctrinaire Tory political philosophy. Two cardinal points in the Amendment show that the Tory Government policy is meant to repress the trade unions and seeks to effect a divorce between them and the Labour Party. The Tory Party fears this alliance; it fears it as it fears nothing else.
In propounding this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that many of the great reforms in the United Kingdom have taken place as a result of strikes which have been political and industrial, and it would be foolish of the Tory Party to ignore it. Millions of trade unionists have taken part in strikes in contravention of the legislation proposed in this Amendment, and to declare as illegal the act of taking part
in a strike which the organisation, or any other person, has called, organised, procured or financed otherwise than in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute
is to misjudge the mood of 10 million trade unionists.
The operative words on which my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) was basing his argument were
otherwise than in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute".
My hon. Friend's argument has been proved, while the right hon. Gentleman has been proved wrong. The people of the United Kingdom have no liking for regimentation or legal oppression or the minimising of the rights of free association. This is a lesson of history. This Amendment seeks close relationship with another Tory brain child of late

and unlamented memory, the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell), and which in 1927 caused massive demonstrations of protest. The numbers attending those protests were only exceeded by the greatest demonstration in history, which was staged against this Bill this year. The opposition in 1927, as in 1971, was industrial and political.
What legal definition is there in the words
otherwise than in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute"?
As I told the right hon. Gentleman last night, he is no legal theoretician. Neither is he. But it is his job to explain this. It is his brain child. Perhaps I should say that the paternity should be shared equally between him and the Solicitor-General. The United Kingdom owes much to the mass protests and strikes which have helped to change attitudes. The Amendment is designed to kill the social and political overtones and feelings with which the people are imbued. They will shortly be mocking the "defeat" of this Bill—which will never work.
11.30 p.m.
The Amendment has been bypassed by the development in Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. That action, which is "irregular", is suported by thousands of unionists and is the opposite of a strike. It is organised and financed in terms unrelated to paragraph (c). It is a phenomenon of the times, supported by every section of opinion in my native land. Such an event makes nonsense of the Amendment, which reintroduces in different words the provisions of the 1927 Act, which dealt with strikes with an object other than the furtherance of a dispute or designed to coerce the Government, either directly or by inflicting hardship on the community.
This attitude towards the unions is of long standing, as one can see from the pamphlet "A Grant Strength", published in 1958 by the Conservative Society of the Inns of Court. It said:
We therefore consider that the political strike should be clearly pronounced to be illegal—and by illegal in this context we mean a criminal offence.
The power to strike sympathetically, socially, politically or economically is


justified if without it employees have insufficient bargaining power. When workers have a great part to play in modern economic life, the fact that this matter has not been discussed in this House shows a regrettable lack of consideration by this Government for the democratic process.
As a result of modern conditions and the trade unions' rightful desire for a fair deal and the right to work, methods will be adopted of bypassing the Amendment. No one knows the futility of this more than the right hon. Gentleman. The Government have misjudged the mood of the times, the mood of the British people, and the resilience of the opposition of the unions to this unwanted Bill.

Mr. Orme: At the outset I asked the Solicitor-General why these proposals, which were not in the Bill when we spent long nights in Committee discussing the Measure, had suddenly been introduced, but he did not give a satisfactory reply.
It is clear that they arose out of the 1st and 18th March stoppages in which my union was supported by the boiler-makers and the unions in the newspaper industry. Was that political action? The unions demonstrated on those days against this Bill to defend their industrial democracy and bargaining power in British industry. In other words, they were taking industrial action against an attempt by the Tory Government to impose political solutions affecting the unions' activities.
There can be no doubt that this is the first political step towards direct interference by the Government in union affairs. It is designed not only to prevent unions from disciplining their members but to deflect those members from taking action, and so to place a complete ban on the industrial action of unions.
We have not heard much from hon. Gentlemen opposite about the action of the N.F.U. in Cardiff when some of its members jostled one of my right hon. Friends when we were in Government. Those demonstrations represented political action to bring the views of the N.F.U. to bear on the then Labour Government. We did not suggest that they should be disciplined or put into prison.

Mr. R. Carr: Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of the N.F.U. trying

to discipline any of its members fur refusing to jostle the then Prime Minister?

Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the argument. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The argument goes far beyond the disciplining of members. This proposal is aimed directly at unions which take action which the right hon. Gentleman or the Government consider to be political. The Solicitor-General did not have the grace or honesty to admit that this arises out of the 1st and 18th March demonstrations against the Bill.
It is not far from here to a corporate State situation. After all, reference has been made to action taken by workers which could have political overtones. One can think of the "Jolly George" and the action of the Lancashire cotton workers. What about the American revolution—[interruption.] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite think this is funny.

Mr. Curran: rose—

Mr. Orme: I will not give way. Very little time remains for the debate.
There is nothing funny about workers who starved in the 19th century because of their support for justice, something which hon. Gentlemen opposite would never be prepared to do.

Mr. Curran: rose—

Mr. Orme: No. I will not give way.
This is a very important issue for democracy. We have seen what has happened in Greece. I was in Czechoslovakia at the time of the Dubcek situation, when one of the first things demanded was a free and independent trade union movement. We have seen what has happened in South Africa, where the trade union movement has been divided into black and white, and political action or real industrial action is forbidden. We have seen what happened recently in the Sudan. We can go all over the world, and the one place where there is a real, free, independent trade union movement—until the Bill gets the Royal Assent tomorrow—is Great Britain.
But we are present this evening at the removal of some of our basic liberties—liberties for which we have fought for


generations, and for which people will continue to fight. This Clause has overtones of some of the most unpleasant aspects of the Bill. Has anyone ever known of legislation being amended as it has been going through Parliament because of action outside Parliament just a matter of days away?
I warn the right hon. Gentleman that he will not get away with this sort of intimidation or threats or legislation. The trade union movement will fight, and, whether the Secretary of State calls it political action or industrial action, the freedoms we have had in the British trade union movement will continue under this Measure as before it, regardless of penalties or restrictions until the Measure itself is removed from the Statute Book.

Mrs. Castle: It is very appropriate that we should end our debates on the Bill with this Amendment, because it has the same Alice-in-Wonderland quality as has permeated all the debates from start to finish. As I listened to the Solicitor-General explaining the purpose of the Amendment, I wondered how hon. Gentlemen opposite could retain enough enthusiasm for this legislation even to go through the Division Lobby tonight.
In the first place, the hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that the Amendment was not really necessary. He said, with disarming frankness, that it was probable that disciplinary action against a union member who refused to take part in a political strike would in any case be contrary to the common law. If that is so, what we are engaged on is pro vision of litigation for litigation's sake. The Solicitor-General could not give one reason why we needed this Amendment or one example of the sort of situation with which it is supposed to deal. There is no legal or political necessity for it. He just got—I was about to say the seven-year itch, and it seems like seven years that we have been dealing with the Bill—

Mr. David Mitchell: I have been listening to the right hon. Lady with great care. Does she realise that, although there is an existing right of redress for someone who is disciplined by his union for not taking part in a political strike, it can cost the members a great deal of

money? It involves his getting a High Court writ. The costs may run to over £1,000, and this is well beyond the pocket of an ordinary trade unionist who finds himself in that position.

Mrs. Castle: I must congratulate the hon. Member on being more ingenious than the Solicitor-General who, when we asked him why, if the right is there at common law, we needed the Amendment, replied that we might as well make it clear; and when we asked for an example or a case, all we got was silence. I repeat that with this Amendment, as during the course of a large part of the Bill, we have been engaged in the provision of litigation for litigation's sake.
11.45 p.m.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely obsessed by the idea that everything can be tied up by some neat legal formula. I tremble to think what will happen to the hon. and learned Gentleman when our discussions on the Bill come to an end. It will be like taking away his necessary drug which has inspired all his activity. He will be wandering around like a lost spirit when he does not have a Clause to draft or redraft, or another Amendment, for perhaps years and years. We may have a serious situation with the psychological collapse of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am anxious for his health.
We turn to the second limb—if I may get as legalistic as we shall all have to get—of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. Even if it is necessary, what does the Amendment do? My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) made a telling intervention asking the hon. and learned Gentleman whether it would be an unfair industrial practice to discipline dockers who downed tools in support of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), and we know that his views are highly political.
Irreverent voices were heard calling out from this side of the House, "That got you, Geoffrey." But we underestimated the ingenuity and rationality of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He said, "Not at all, because dockers who demonstrated in favour of the racist views of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, were taking political action, and it is an unfair industrial practice only to


discipline them for refusing or failing to do so." If the Gilbertian essence of this situation does not strike hon. Gentlemen opposite, they are beyond redemption.
This means that it is not an unfair industrial practice for workers to take political action against the advice of their trade union; there is nothing wrong with that; all this talk about political strikes is totally irrelevant to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. It is not wrong to take political action against the union's advice but it is wrong—it is this naughty thing, an unfair industrial practice—for the union to discipline members who refuse to take part in a collective decision of the union.
I should have thought that that was turning the whole philosophy of the Bill on its head in any case, for I thought that the only thing the right hon. Gentleman wanted to do was to get at the wild cats, at the mad hats who did not obey their union. I thought that that was what the whole exercise was about and that the right hon. Gentleman so loved the trade unions that what he wanted to do was to underpin their authority. By the hon. and learned Gentleman's admission, the Government are doing exactly the opposite by this Amendment.
It is extremely appropriate that we should be having this swan song at this stage of the Bill on this Amendment. The witching hour is drawing near and at midnight the guillotine falls. Tomorrow the Government will be rushing with all speed to get the Queen's Assent to this Bill. "Look" they will be chanting, "we have done it. We have kept one election pledge. We forced the Bill through the House of Commons in the time limit we set ourselves. We did not mind what we sacrificed to get the Bill on the Statute Book before the Summer Recess." This had become the sole aim of the right hon. Gentleman's industrial relations policy, the sum total of this Government's contribution to this controversial problem. They did not mind what they sacrificed so long as they hit the deadline; they did not mind whether they sacrificed a proper examination of the Bill, they did not mind whether they sacrificed the rights of Parliament, they did not mind whether Parliament was stopped from voting, if they stopped Parliament, as they will be stopping it shortly, from saying whether it wants to

accept or reject a series of Amendments which are very different in character.
That does not matter. They say, "Our gauleiter gets things done." Here it is: this Government's one and only contribution to the solution of this country's economic difficulties! Unemployment may be at its highest peak for 30 years but at least they say they have outlawed the politico-sympathetic action of unemployed workers on the Upper Clyde. "That would be political action, would it not? It is that which would ruin the country." The number of working days lost through strikes during the miserable months under this Government and the loss of production may have doubled, but "Ah", says the right hon. Gentleman, "we have halved the number of those little strikes that last only three days and we always intended to 'go American, didn't we?".
The trade unionists have marched off the Commission on Industrial Relations to a man. Not only Mr. George Woodcock, but Mr. Alf Allen, and Mr. Will Paynter have walked out, and the right hon. Gentleman is incapable of finding any trade unionist in any part of the political spectrum to serve on the Commission because of the rôle that he has given it under this Bill.
"Yet," says the right hon. Gentleman, "there it is—our instrument for reforming procedure agreements and improving industrial relations." It will be busy doing that in the absence of the trade unions, in the absence of half of the industrial parties concerned. If the trade unions do not like the agreements which the Commission draws up for them, then the employer can impose those agreements upon them, as if, to use the tendentious words of this Bill they were "a contract freely negotiated." This is the level of debasement we have reached in the language of industrial relations.
We talk about the sanctity of contract, about the extension of freedom. The hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) talked about the extension of freedom under the Bill—[Interruption.]—the essence of contract. Yes, words mean what hon. Gentlemen opposite decide they shall mean. A contract, if it means anything, means a bargain freely struck, and yet the right hon. Gentleman is to impose procedure


agreements and make them legally enforceable as if they were a contract. If words can lose their meaning in this way, there will be no language in which management will be able to talk to unions in industry.
Tonight, when the Guillotine falls, I have not the slightest doubt that hon. Members opposite will repair to the Smoke Room and roll out the champagne again, celebrating the most successful take-over bid in Ministerial history. The Solicitor-General has moved in on industrial relations like the cuckoo in the nest, and the Secretary of State has not so much been pushed out of the nest as jumped out of it. We have watched him during the stages of this Bill crowded out of the discussion of one Clause after another for the simple reason that the Bill was incomprehensible to anybody but the Solicitor-General. Therefore, conciliation and common sense have abdicated in favour of the court room.
As a result of this Bill we face a wave of bitterness among organised workers greater than this country has known for many a long year. What a commentary it is on this Bill that as part of its grand finale we should find it necessary for the first time in our history to be legislating about political strikes; what a commentary that is on the Government's policies; what a commentary on their unemployment policies; what a commentary on their "lame ducks" policy; what a commentary on their industrial relations policy. [Interruption.] Having been steam-rollered at every stage of this Bill, we on this side of the House have the

right, before the steam-roller of the votes of the majority subservient party silences our protest, to be heard to the end, and we intend to be heard.

We leave hon. Members opposite to enjoy their pyrrhic victory. They may have won the parliamentary battle; power, they have proved, is more powerful than argument. But have they won the industrial relations battle? Does any right hon. or hon. Member opposite seriously believe that? Any body who is honest and informed will admit that the industrial relations battle will be won only in men's minds. The supreme and sublime irony of this Bill is that the Government's only hope is that no one will take the slightest bit of notice of it. That is the Secretary of State's hope. That is what he is counting on—that the powers will not be used; that the legal paraphernalia will be ignored; that the trade union movement will forget the insults; that perhaps he will be able to retract. Perhaps eventually he will be able to win them back into consultation and to the conciliation table again. This is the net result of all these months of argument. There is not an hon. Member—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am now required to put the Question forthwith.

It being Twelve o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [28th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes, 222.

Division No. 466.]
AYES
[12.00 m.


Adley, Robert
Bossom, Sir Clive
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bowden, Andrew
Clegg, Walter


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cockeram, Eric


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Braine, Bernard
Coombs, Derek


Atkins, Humphrey
Bray, Ronald
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Awdry, Daniel
Brewis, John
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Costain, A. P.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Critchley, Julian


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Crouch, David


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Curran, Charles


Batsford, Brian
Bryan, Paul
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Bell, Ronald
Buck, Antony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Dean, Paul


Benyon, W.
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Berry, Hn, Anthony
Carlisle, Mark
Dixon, Piers


Biffen, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Biggs-Davison, John
Channon, Paul
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Blaker, Peter
Chapman, Sydney
Drayson, G. B.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Chichester-Clark, R.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Body, Richard
Churchill, W. S.
Eden, Sir John


Boscawen, Robert
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)




Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Emery, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Farr, John
Kilfedder, James
Ridsdale, Julian


Fell, Anthony
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kinsey, J. R.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fidler, Michael
Kirk, Peter
Rost, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Knox, David
Scott, Nicholas


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lambton, Antony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fortescue, Tim
Lane, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Foster, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fowler, Norman
Le Marchant, Spencer
Simeons, Charles


Fox, Marcus
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sinclair, Sir George


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Longden, Gilbert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fry, Peter
Loveridge, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Soref, Harold


Gardner, Edward
MacArthur, Ian
Speed, Keith


Gibson-Watt, David
McCrindle, R. A.
Spence, John


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McLaren, Martin
Sproat, Iain


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Macmillan, Maurice (Famham)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, w.)


Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stodart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Goodhew, Victor
Maddan, Martin
Stokes, John


Corst, John
Madel, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gower, Raymond
Marten, Neil
Sutcliffe, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mather, Carol
Tapsell, Peter


Gray, Hamish
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Green, Alan
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Grieve, Percy
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Grylls, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tebbit, Norman


Gummer, Selwyn
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Temple, John M.


Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Moate, Roger
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Money, Ernle
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tilney, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hannan, John (Exeter)
More, Jasper
Trew, Peter


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hastings, Stephen
Mudd, David
van straubenzee, W. R.


Havers, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hawkins, Paul
Neave, Airey
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hay, John
Normanton, Tom
Waddington, David


Hayhoe, Barney
Nott, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Onslow, Cranley
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Higgins, Terence L.
Osborn, John
Wall, Patrick


Hiley, Joseph
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Holt, Miss Mary
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hordern, Peter
Peel, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hornby, Richard
Percival, Ian
Wiggin, Jerry


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Pink, R. Bonner
Wilkinson, John


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pounder, Rafton
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Woodnutt, Mark


Hunt, John
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Worsley, Marcus


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Iremonger, T. L.
Redmond, Robert



James, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jessel, Toby
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Hugh Rossi.


Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David





NOES


Albu, Austen
Bishop, E. S.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Booth, Albert
Cohen, Stanley


Ashton, Joe
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Coleman, Donald


Atkinson, Norman
Bradley, Tom
Conlan, Bernard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Barnes, Michael
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Crawshaw, Richard


Barnett, Joel
Buchan, Norman
Cronin, John


Beaney, Alan
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cant, R. B.
Dalyell, Tam


Bidwell, Sydney
Carmichael, Neil
Darling, Rt. Hn. George







Davidson, Arthur
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Paget, R. T.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur


Davics, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


de Fraias, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pendry, Tom


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Doig, Peter
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Probert, Arthur


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Judd, Frank
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Driberg, Tom
Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dunnett, Jack
Kinnock, Neil
Richard, Ivor


Eadie, Alex
Lambie, David
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edelman, Maurice
Latham, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, George
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Ellis, Tom
Leonard, Dick
Roper, John


English, Michael
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Rose, Paul B.


Evans, Fred
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sandelson, Neville


Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lipton, Marcus
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Hn, S. C. (Dulwich)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silverman, Julius


Foley, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Skinner, Dennis


Foot, Michael
McBride, Neil
Small, William


Ford, Ben
McCartney, Hugh
Spearing, Nigel


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Maclennan, Robert
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Gilbert, Dr. John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Strang, Gavin


Golding, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Gourlay, Harry
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marquand, David
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marsden, F.
Tinn, James


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Tomney, Frank


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Meacher, Michael
Torney, Tom


Hamling, William
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mendelson, John
Urwin, T. W.


Hardy, Peter
Millan, Bruce
Varley, Eric G.


Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wainwright, Edwin


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Molloy, William
Wallace, George


Hattersley, Roy
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Watkins, David


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weitzman, David


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitehead, Philip


Horam, John
Morris, Rt. Hn, John (Aberavon)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Huckfield, Leslie
Murray, Ronald King
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian



Hunter, Adam
Oram, Bert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Janner, Greville
Orme, Stanley
Mr. James Hamilton and


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)

Mr. Speaker: I am now required to designate those of the remaining Lords Amendments which appear to involve Privilege. They are Amendments Nos. 139, 140, 144, 145, 149, 170, 171 and 177.

Motion made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments except those so designated by Mr. Speaker.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Mr. Heffer: No. Each Amendment should be taken separately.

Mr. Speaker: First I have to put the general Question and then put the Question afterwards on each designated Amendment. [Interruption.]

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [28th July], put forthwith the Question thereon:—

The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 217.

Division No. 467.]
AYES
[12.11 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Fortescue, Tim
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Foster, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fowler, Norman
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fox, Marcus
Maddan, Martin


Atkins, Humphrey
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Madel, David


Awdry, Daniel
Fry, Peter
Mather, Carol


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maude, Angus


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gardner, Edward
Mawby, Ray


Balniel, Lord
Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Bell, Ronald
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Goodhart, Philip
Moate, Roger


Benyon, W.
Goodhew, Victor
Money, Ernle


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gorst, John
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Biffen, John
Gower, Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
More, Jasper


Blaker, Peter
Gray, Hamish
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Boardman, Tom (Leicaster, S.W.)
Green, Alan
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Body, Richard
Grieve, Percy
Mudd, David


Boscawen, Robert
Griffiths, Elden (Bury St. Edmunds)
Murton, Oscar


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grylls, Michael
Neave, Airey


Bowden, Andrew
Gummer, Selwyn
Normanton, Tom


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gurden, Harold
Nott, John


Braine, Bernard
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Onslow, Cranley


Bray, Ronald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Brewis, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Osborn, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Blocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Page, Graham (Grosny)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, John (Earrow, W.)


Bruce-Gardyno, J.
Haselhurst, Alan
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Bryan, Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Peel, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Havers, Michael
Percival, Ian


Buck, Antony
Hawkins, Paul
Pink, R. Bonner


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hay, John
Pounder, Rafton


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hayhoe, Barney
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carlisle, Mark
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Carr, Rt Hn. Robert
Hicks, Robert
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Channon, Paul
Higgins, Terence L.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Heffey, Joseph
Redmond, Robert


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Churchill, W. S.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Holt, Miss Mary
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Clegg, Walter
Hornby, Richard
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cockeram, Eric
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Ridsdale, Julian


Coombs, Derek
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (Norfok, N.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Costain, A. P.
Hunt, John
Rost, Peter


Critchley, Julian
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ruseell, Sir Ronald


Crouch, David
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott, Nicholas


Curran, Charles
James, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Jopling, Michael
Simeons, Charles


Dean, Paul
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Sinclair, Sir George


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kilfedder, James
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dixon, Piers
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kinsey, J. R.
Soref, Harold


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kirk, Peter
Spence, John


Drayson, G. B.
Kitson, Timothy
Sproat, Iain


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knox, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Eden, Sir John
Lambton, Antony
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lane, David
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stokes, John


Emery, Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sutcliffe, John


Farr, John
Longden, Gilbert
Tapsell, Peter


Fell, Anthony
Loveridge, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Fidler, Michael
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McCrindle, R. A.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McLaren, Martin
Tebbit, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Temple, John M.




Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Waddington, David
Wilkinson, John


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Tilney, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Woodnutt, Mark


Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wall, Patrick
Worsley, Marcus


Trew, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. A.


Tugendhat, Christopher
Wells, John (Maidstone)



van Straubenzee, W. R.
White, Roger (Gravesend)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. Keith Speed and


Vickers, Dame Joan
Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Foot, Michael
Marsden, F.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ford, Ben
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Archer, Peter (Rowey Regis)
Forrester, John
Meacher, Michael


Armstrong, Emest
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Ashton, Joe
Freeson, Reginald
Mendelson, John


Atkinson, Norman
Galpern, Sir Myer
Millan, Bruce


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gilbert, Dr. John
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Barnes, Michael
Golding, John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Molloy, William


Barnett, Joel
Gourlay, Harry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Beaney, Alan
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Moyle, Roland


Bishop, E. S.
Handing, William
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Murray, Ronald King


Booth, Albert
Hardy, Peter
Ogden, Eric


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Harper, Joseph
O'Halloran, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O' Malley, Brian


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oram, Bert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hattersley, Roy
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Oswald, Thomas


Buchan, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Horam, John
Palmer, Arthur


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Carmichael, Neil
Huckfield, Leslie
Peart, Rt. Hn. Feed


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pendry, Tom


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pentland, Norman


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, Ernest G.


Cohen, Stanley
Hunter, Adam
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Coleman, Donald
Janner, Greville
Prescott, John


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cronin, John
John, Brynmor
Richard, Ivor


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roberts, John (Paisley)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roper, John


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rose, Paul B.


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Sandelson, Neville


Davies, Denzil (Llanclly)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Judd, Frank
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Delargy, H. J.
Latham, Arthur
Small, William


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lawson, George
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Leadbitter, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Doig, Peter
Leonard, Dick
Spriggs, Leslie


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Stallard, A. W.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Driberg, Tom
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lipton, Marcus
Strang, Gavin


Dunnett, Jack
Loughlin, Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Edelman, Maurice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


Ellis, Tom
McCartney, Hugh
Tomney, Frank


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Torney, Tom


Evans, Fred
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tuck, Raphael


Faulds, Andrew
Mackie, John
Urwin, T. W.


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Maclennan, Robert
Varley, Eric G.


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wallace, George




Watkins, David


Foley, Maurice
Marks, Kenneth
Weitzman, David







Whitehead, Phillip
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Woof, Robert
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Clause 66

APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION AS TRADE UNION

Lords Amendment: No. 139, in page 55, line 14, leave out "on payment of the prescribed fee "and insert" subject to the next following subsection".

Motion made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [28th July], put forthwith the Question thereon;—

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 220.

Division No. 468.]
AYES
[12.22 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jopling, Michael


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Emery, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Allason, James (Heme) Hempstead)
Eyre, Reginald
Kilfedder, James


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Farr, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Fell, Anthony
Kinsey, J. R.


Awdry, Daniel
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kirk, Peter


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fidler, Michael
Kitson, Timothy


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Knox, David


Balniel, Lord
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lambton, Antony


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lane, David


Batsford, Brian
Foster, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fowler, Norman
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bell, Ronald
Fox, Marcus
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Longden, Gilbert


Benyon, W.
Fry, Peter
Loveridge, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Galbraith, Hn. T.G.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Biffen, John
Gardner, Edward
MacArthur, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Gibson-Watt, David
McCrindle, R. A.


Blaker, Peter
Glimour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McLaren, Martin


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Body, Richard
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Boscawen, Robert
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Bowden, Andrew
Gorst, John
Maddan, Martin


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gower, Raymond
Madel, David


Braine, Bernard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mather, Carol


Bray, Ronald
Gray, Hamish
Maude, Angus


Brewis, John
Green, Alan
Mawby, Ray


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grieve, Percy
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grylls, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gummer, Selwyn
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Bryan, Paul
Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Buck, Antony
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Moate, Roger


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Money, Ernle


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Carlisle, Mark
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter)
More, Jasper


Channon, Paul
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hastings, Stephen
Mudd, David


Churchill, W. S.
Havers, Michael
Murton, Oscar


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hawkins, Paul
Neave, Airey


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hay, John
Normanton, Tom


Clegg, Walter
Hayhoe, Barney
Nott, John


Cockeram, Eric
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Onslow, Cranley


Coombs, Derek
Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Higgins, Terence L.
Osborn, John


Cormack, Patrick
Hiley, Joseph
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Costain, A. P.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Critchley, Julian
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Crouch, David
Holt, Miss Mary
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hordern, Peter
Peel, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hornby, Richard
Percival, Ian


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Pink, R. Bonner


Dean, Paul
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pounder, Rafton


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Dixon, Piers
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hunt, John
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Drayson, G. B.
Iremonger, T. L.
Redmond, Robert


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
James, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Eden, Sir John
Jessel, Toby
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees-Davies, W. R.




Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Waddington, David


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stokes, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Ridsdale, Julian
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Sutcliffe, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tapsell, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Ward, Dame Irene


Rost, Peter
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Catncart)
Weatherill, Bernard


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Tebbit, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Temple, John M.
Wiggin, Jerry


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wilkinson, John


Simeons, Charles
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Sinclair, Sir George
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Skeet, T. H. H.
Tilney, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Worsley, Marcus


Soref, Harold
Trew, Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Speed, Keith
Tugendhat, Christopher



Spence, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sproat, Iain
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. Tim Fortescue


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)






NOES


Albu, Austen
Edelman, Maurice
Lambie, David


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Latham, Arthur


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lawson, George


Armstrong, Ernest
Ellis, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted


Ashton, Joe
English, Michael
Leonard, Dick


Atkinson, Norman
Evans, Fred
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Barnes, Michael
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lipton, Marcus


Barnett, Joel
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Loughlin, Charles


Beaney, Alan
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Foley, Maurice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Foot, Michael
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bidwell, Sydney
Ford, Ben
McBride, Neil


Bishop, E. S.
Forrester, John
McCartney, Hugh


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McGuire, Michael


Booth, Albert
Freeson, Reginald
Mackenzie, Gregor


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackie, John


Bradley, Tom
Gilbert, Dr. John
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Golding, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Buchan, Norman
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marks, Kenneth


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marquand, David


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marsden, F.


Cant, R. B.
Hamling, William
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Carmichael, Neil
Hannan, William (C'gow, Maryhill)
Meacher, Michael


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hardy, Peter
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Harper, Joseph
Mendelson, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Cohen, Stanley
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Coleman, Donald
Hattersley, Roy
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Conlan, Bernard
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Molloy, William


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Crawshaw, Richard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cronin, John
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Huckfield, Leslie
Moyle, Roland


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Murray, Ronald King


Darling, Rt Hn. George
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric


Davidson, Arthur
Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Janner, Greville
O'Malley, Brian


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oram, Bert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Orme, Stanley


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oswald, Thomas


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


do Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur


Delargy, H. J.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Doig, Peter
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pendry, Tom


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pentland, Norman


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Driberg, Tom
Judd, Frank
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kaufman, Gerald
Prescott, John




Probert, Arthur


Dunnett, Jack
Kelley, Richard
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Eadie, Alex
Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)







Rhodes, Geoffrey
Spriggs, Leslie
Wainwright, Edwin


Richard, Ivor
Stallard, A. W.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wallace, George


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Watkins, David


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Weitzman, David


Roper, John
Strang, Gavin
Whitehead, Phillip


Rose, Paul B.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Sandelson, Neville
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Tinn, James
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Tomney, Frank
Woof, Robert


Silverman, Julius
Torney, Tom



Skinner, Dennis
Tuck, Raphael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Small, William
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. James Hamilton and


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. Alan Fitch


Spearing, Nigel

Mr. Speaker: As the House is willing to waive its privilege, I will see that an entry to that effect is made in the Journal.

Lords Amendment: No. 140, in page 55, line 16, at end insert:
(5) Except as provided by section 77(5) of this Act, the registrar shall not register an organisation under this section except on payment of a fee of £25 or such other sum as may be prescribed.

Motion made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [28th July], put forthwith the Question thereon:—

The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes. 220.

Division No. 469.]
AYES
[12.34 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Crouch, David
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Curran, Charles
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hannnm, John (Exeter)


Atkins, Humphrey
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Awdry, Daniel
Dean, Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Deedes Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hastings, Stephen


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Dixon, Piers
Havers, Michael


Balniel, Lord
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hay, John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hayhoe, Barney


Batsford, Brian
Drayson, G. B.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hicks, Robert


Bell, Ronald
Eden, Sir John
Higgins, Terence L.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hiley, Joseph


Benyon, W.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Emery, Peter
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Biffen, John
Eyre, Reginald
Holt, Miss Mary


Biggs-Davison, John
Farr, John
Hordern, Peter


Blaker, Peter
Fell, Anthony
Hornby, Richard


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Body, Richard
Fidler, Michael
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Boscawen, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bowden, Andrew
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hunt, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fortescue, Tim
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brains, Bernard
Foster, Sir John
Iremonger, T, L.


Bray, Ronald
Fowler, Norman
James, David


Brewis, John
Fox, Marcus
Jessel, Toby


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Crinstead)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fry, Peter
Jopling, Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gardner, Edward
Kelfedder, James


Bryan, Paul
Gibson-Watt, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Buck, Antony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kinsey, J. R.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kirk, Peter


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kitson, Timothy


Carlisle, Mark
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Knox, David


Carr, Rt, Hn. Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Lambton, Antony


Channon, Paul
Goodhew, Victor
Lane, David


Chapman, Sydney
Gorst, John
Legge-Boiurke, Sir Harry


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gower, Raymond
Le Marchant, Spencer


Churchill, W. S.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gray, Hamish
Longden, Gelbert


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Green, Alan
Loveridge, John


Cockeram, Eric
Grieve, Percy
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Coombs, Derek
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
MacArthur, Ian


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Grylls, Michael
McCrindle, R. A.


Cormack, Patrick
Gummer, Selwyn
McLaren, Martin


Costain, A. P.
Gurden, Harold
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy




Macmillan, Maurice (Famham)


Critchley, Julian
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McNair-Wilson, Michael




McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Maddan, Martin
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Tebbit, Norman


Madel, David
Redmond, Robert
Temple, John M.


Mather, Carol
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Maude, Angus
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Mawby, Ray
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tilney, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ridsdale, Julian
Trew, Peter


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Moate, Roger
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Money, Ernle
Rost, Peter
Vickers, Dame Joan


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Russell, Sir Ronald
Waddington, David


Montgomery, Fergus
Scott, Nicholas
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


More, Jasper
Scott-Hopkins, James
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Wall, Patrick


Mudd, David
Simeons, Charles
Walters, Dennis


Murton, Oscar
Sinclair, Sir George
Ward, Dame Irene


Neave, Airey
Skeet, T. H. H.
Weatherill, Bernard


Normanton, Tom
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'minton)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Nott, John
Soref, Harold
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Onslow, Cranley
Speed, Keith
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Spence, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Osborn, John
Sproat, Iain
Wilkinson, John


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Stokes, John
Worsley, Marcus


Peel, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Percival, Ian
Sutcliffe, John



Pink, R. Bonner
Tapsell, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pounder, Rafton
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Edward M. (C'gow, Cathcart)
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)





NOES


Albu, Austen
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hattersley, Roy


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
de Fritcas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Armstrong, Ernest
Delargy, H J.
Heffer, Eric S.


Ashton, Joe
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Horam, John


Atkinson, Norman
Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Doig, Peter
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Barnes, Michael
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Huckfield, Leslie


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)
Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Beaney, Alan
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dunnett, Jack
Hunter, Adam


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Eadie, Alex
Janner, Greville


Bidwell, Sydney
Edelman, Maurice
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bishop, E. S.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Booth, Albert
Ellis, Tom
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
English, Michael
John, Brynmor


Bradley, Tom
Evans, Fred
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Faulds, Andrew
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch& F'bury)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Judd, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Foley, Maurice
Kaufman, Gerald


Carmichael, Neil
Foot, Michael
Kelley, Richard


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Ford, Ben
Kinnock, Neil


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Forrester, John
Lambie, David


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Latham, Arthur


Cohen, Stanley
Freeson, Reginald
Lawson, George


Conlan, Bernard
Galpern, Sir Myer
Leadbitter, Ted


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gilbert, Dr. John
Leonard, Dick


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Golding, John
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Crawshaw, Richard
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Cronin, John
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lewis Ron (Carlisle)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lipton, Marcus


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Loughlin, Charles


Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Darling, Rt Hn. George
Hamling, William
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Davidson, Arthur
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hardy, Peter
McBride, Neil


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Harper, Joseph
McCartney, Hugh




McGuire, Michael


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackenzie, Gregor







Mackie, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Maclennan, Robert
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


McNamara, J. Kevin
Pendry, Tom
Strang, Gavin


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Pentland, Norman
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Marks, Kenneth
Perry, Ernest C.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Marquand, David
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Marsden, F.
Prescott, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Probert, Arthur
Tinn, James


Meacher, Michael
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Tomney, Frank


Mellish, Rt. Hn, Robert
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Torney, Tom


Mendelson, John
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Tuck, Raphael


Millan, Bruce
Richard, Ivor
Urwin, T. W.


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Varley, Eric G.


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wainwright, Edwin


Molloy, William
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Roper, John
Wallace, George


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rose, Paul B.
Watkins, David


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sandelson, Neville
Weitzman, David


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Whitehead, Phillip


Moyle, Roland
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Murray, Ronald King
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ogden, Eric
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


O'Halloran, Michael
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


O'Malley, Brian
Small, William
Woof, Robert


Oram, Bert
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)



Orme, Stanley
Spearing, Nigel
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Oswald, Thomas
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. James Hamilton.


Palmer, Arthur

Mr. Speaker: As the House is willing to waive its privilege, I will see that an entry to that effect is made in the Journal.

Clause 70

APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION AS EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION

Lords Amendment: No. 144, in page 56, line 27, leave out "on payment of the

prescribed fee "and insert" subject to the next following subsection".

Motion made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [28th July], put forthwith the Question thereon:—

The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 217.

Division No. 470.]
AYES
[12.44 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Bullus, Sir Eric
Fell, Anthony


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Carlisle, Mark
Fidler, Michael


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Atkins, Humphrey
Channon, Paul
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Awdry, Daniel
Chapman, Sydney
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fortescue, Tim


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Churchill, W. S.
Foster, Sir John


Balniel, Lord
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fowler, Norman


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fox, Marcus


Batsford, Brian
Clegg, Walter
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cockeram, Eric
Fry, Peter


Bell, Ronald
Coombs, Derek
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Gardner, Edward


Benyon, W.
Cormack, Patrick
Gibson-Watt, David


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Biffen, John
Critchley, Julian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Crouch, David
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Blaker, Peter
Curran, Charles
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Goodhart, Philip


Body, Richard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Goodhew, Victor


Boscawen, Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Gorst, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dean, Paul
Gower, Raymond


Bowden, Andrew
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Dixon, Piers
Gray, Hamish


Braine, Bernard
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Green, Alan


Bray, Ronald
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Grieve, Percy


Brewis, John
Drayson, G. B.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Grylls, Michael


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Eden, Sir John
Gummer, Selwyn


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gurden, Harold


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Bryan, Paul
Emery, Peter
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Buck, Antony
Farr, John





Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maddan, Martin
Sinclair, Sir George


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mather, Carol
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Angus
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mawby, Ray
Soref, Harold


Haselhurst, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Speed, Keith


Hastings, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spence, John


Havers, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sproat, Iain


Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, w.)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hay, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Money, Ernle
Stokes, John


Hicks, Robert
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Higgins, Terence L.
Montgomery, Fergus
Sutcliffe, John


Hiley, Joseph
More, Jasper
Tapsell, Peter


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Holt, Miss Mary
Mudd, David
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hordern, Peter
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hornby, Richard
Neave, Airey
Tebbit, Norman


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Normanton, Tom
Temple, John M.


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Nott, John
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Howell, David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hunt, John
Osborn, John
Tilney, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Iremonger, T. L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Trew, Peter


James, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Jessel, Toby
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Peel, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Jopling, Michael
Percival, Ian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Pink, R. Bonner
Waddington, David


Kilfedder, James
Pounder, Rafton
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Kinsey, J. R.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Kirk, Peter
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wall, Patrick


Kitson, Timothy
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Walters, Dennis


Knox, David
Redmond, Robert
Ward, Dame Irene


Lambton, Antony
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Lane, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rees-Davies, W. R.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Longden, Gilbert
Ridsdale, Julian
Wilkinson, John


Loveridge, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


MacArthur, Ian
Rost, Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


McCrindle, R. A.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Worsley, Marcus


McLaren, Martin
Scott, Nicholas
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Scott-Hopkins, James



Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Simeons, Charles
Mr. Hugh Rossi.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Eadie, Alex


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Edelman, Maurice


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cohen, Stanley
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Armstrong, Ernest
Conlan, Bernard
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Ashton, Joe
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ellis, Tom


Atkinson, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
English, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crawshaw, Richard
Evans, Fred


Barnes, Michael
Cronin, John
Faulds, Andrew


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Barnett, Joel
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)


Beaney, Alan
Dalyell, Tam
Fitt, Gerard (Balfast, W.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davidson, Arthur
Foley, Maurice


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Foot, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ford, Ben


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Forrester, John


Booth, Albert
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Freeson, Reginald


Bradley, Tom
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Galpern, Sir Myer


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Delargy, H. J.
Gilbert, Dr. John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Golding, John


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Buchan, Norman
Doig, Peter



Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Cant, R. B.
Driberg, Tom
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Carmichael, Neil
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dunnett, Jack
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)







Hamling, William
McCartney, Hugh
Richard, Ivor


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McGuire, Michael
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Hardy, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor
Roper, John


Harper, Joseph
Mackie, John
Rose, Paul B.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maclennan, Robert
Sandelson, Neville


Hart, Rt, Hn. Judith
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Hattersley, Roy
McNamara, J. Kevin
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mallalicu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Heffer, Eric S.
Marks, Kenneth
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Horam, John
Marquand, David
Silverman, Julius


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marsden, F.
Skinner, Dennis


Huckfield, Leslie
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Small, William


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Meacher, Michael
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mendelson, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Hunter, Adam
Millan, Bruce
Stallard, A. W.


Janner, Greville
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Molloy, William
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Strang, Gavin


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Steehford)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


John, Brynmor
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Moyle, Roland
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Tinn, James


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Murray, Ronald King
Tomney, Frank


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Ogden, Eric
Torney, Tom


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tuck, Raphael


Judd, Frank
O'Malley, Brian
Urwin, T. W.


Kaufman, Gerald
Oram, Bert
Varley, Eric G.


Kelley, Richard
Orme, Stanley
Wainwright, Edwin


Kinnock, Neil
Oswald, Thomas
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lambie, David
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wallace, George


Latham, Arthur
Palmer, Arthur
Watkins, David


Lawson, George
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Weitzman, David


Leadbitter, Ted
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Whitehead, Phillip


Leonard, Dick
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Pendry, Tom
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Pentland, Norman
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Perry, Ernest G.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lipton, Marcus
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Loughlin, Charles
Prescott, John
Woof, Robert


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Probert, Arthur



Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


McBride, Neil
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Mr. Alan Fitch.

Mr. Speaker: As the House is willing to waive its privilege, I will see that an entry is made to that effect in the Journal of the House.

Lords Amendment: No. 145, in page 56, line 29, at end insert—
(5) Except as provided by section 77(5) of this Act, the registrar shall not register an organisation under this section except on payment

of a fee of £25 or such other sum as may be prescribed.

Motion made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [28th July], put forthwith the Question thereon:—

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 218.

Division No. 471.]
AYES
[12.55 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Channon, Paul


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Body, Richard
Chapman, Sydney


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boscawen, Robert
Chichester-Clark, R.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Churchill, W. S.


Atkins, Humphrey
Bowden, Andrew
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Awdry, Daniel
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Braine, Bernard
Clegg, Walter


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bray, Ronald
Cockeram, Eric


Balniel, Lord
Brewis, John
Coombs, Derek


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Batsford, Brian
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Cormack, Patrick


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Costain, A. P.


Bell, Ronald
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Critchley, Julian


Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)
Bryan, Paul
Crouch, David


Benyon, W. R.
Buck, Antony
Curran, Charles


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bullus, Sir Eric
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Biffen, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, Mark
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James


Blaker, Peter
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Dean, Paul




Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hunt, John
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dixon, Piers
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
James, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Drayson, G. B.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ridsdale, Julian


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Eden, Sir John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kilfedder, James
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rost, Peter


Emery, Peter
Kinsey, J. R.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eyre, Reginald
Kirk, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Farr, John
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fell, Anthony
Knox, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lambton, Antony
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fidler, Michael
Lane, David
Simeons, Charles


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sinclair, Sir George


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Foster, Sir John
Longden, Gilbert
Soref, Harold


Fowler, Norman
Loveridge, John
Spence, John


Fox, Marcus
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sproat, Iain


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
MacArthur, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fry, Peter
McCrindle, R. A.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McLaren, Martin
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Gardner, Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stokes, John


Gibson-Watt, David
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sutcliffe, John


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Tapsell, Peter


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Madel, David
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Temple, John M.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Green, Alan
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tilney, John


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Moate, Roger
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Grylls, Michael
Money, Ernle
Trew, Peter


Gummer, Selwyn
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
More, Jasper
Vanghan, Dr. Gerard


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walder, David (Clithenoe)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mudd, David
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Murton, Oscar
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey
Wall, Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Normanton, Tom
Walters, Dennis


Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Havers, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Weatherill, Bernard


Hawkins, Paul
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hay, John
Osborn, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hayhoe, Barney
Owen, Idris
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wiggin, Jerry


Hicks, Robert
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wilkinson, John


Higgins, Terence L.
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hiley, Joseph
Peel, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Percival, Ian
Woodnutt, Mark


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pink, R. Bonner
Worsley, Marcus


Holt, Miss Mary
Pounder, Rafton



Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch



Hornby, Richard
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Mr. Keith Speed and


Howell, David (Guildford)
Redmond, Robert
Mr. Tim Fortescue.


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Reed, Laurance





NOES


Albu, Austen
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Booth, Albert
Cohen, Stanley


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Conlan, Bernard


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Tom
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Crawshaw, Richard


Barnes, Michael
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch&F'bury)
Cronin, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Buchan, Norman
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Barnett, Joel
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow Sp'bum)
Dalyell, Tam


Beaney, Alan
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cant, R. B.
Davidson, Arthur


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)


Bidwell, Sydney
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Bishop, E. S.
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)







Davis, Clinton, (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
John, Brynmor
Pavitt, Laurie


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pendry, Tom


Delargy, H. J.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Doig, Peter
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prescott, John


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Probert, Arthur


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Judd, Frank
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Driberg, Tom
Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dunnett, Jack
Kinnock, Neil
Richard, Ivor


Eadie, Alex
Lambie, David
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edelman, Maurice
Latham, Arthur
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, George
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Leadbitter, Ted
Roper, John


Ellis, Tom
Leonard, Dick
Rose, Paul B.


English, Michael
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Sandelson, Neville


Evans, Fred
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silverman, Julius


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Skinner, Dennis


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil
Small, William


Foley, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Foot, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Ford, Ben
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spriggs, Leslie


Forrester, John
Mackie, John
Stallard, A. W.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Maclennan, Robert
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Freeson, Reginald
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Strang, Gavin


Golding, John
Marks, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marquand, David
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marsden, F.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Meacher, Michael
Tinn, James


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tomney, Frank


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mendelson, John
Torney, Tom


Hamling, William
Millan, Bruce
Tuck, Raphael


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Urwin, T. W.


Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Varley, Eric G.


Harper, Joseph
Molloy, William
Wainwright, Edwin


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wallace, George


Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, David


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Weitzman, David


Heffer, Eric S.
Moyle, Roland
Whitehead, Phillip


Horam, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Ronald King
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Huckfield, Leslie
O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Malley, Brian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, Bert



Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Stanley
Woof, Robert


Hunter Adam
Oswald, Thomas



Janner, Greville
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Mr. Speaker: As the House is willing to waive its privilege, I will see that an

entry is made to that effect in the Journal of the House.

Clause 72

INCORPORATION AND VESTING OF PROPERTY

Lords Amendment: No. 149, in page 57, line 11, at end insert:
and any liability or obligation to which any person is for the time being subject in his capacity as a trustee for the organisation shall by virtue of this section be transferred to the organisation.

() Nothing in section 12 of the Finance Act 1895 (which requires certain Acts to be stamped as conveyances on sale) shall be taken as applying to this Act."

Motion made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [28th July], put forthwith the Question thereon:—

The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 217.

Division No. 472.]
AYES
[1.6 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Eden, Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jopling, Michael


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Emery, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Atkins, Humphrey
Eyre, Reginald
Kilfedder, James


Awdry, Daniel
Farr, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fell, Anthony
Kinsey, J. R.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kirk, Peter


Balniel, Lord
Fidler, Michael
Kitson, Timothy


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Knox, David


Batsford, Brian
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lambton, Antony


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lane, David


Bell, Ronald
Fortescue, Tim
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Foster, Sir John
Le Marchant, Spencer


Benyon, W.
Fowler, Norman
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fox, Marcus
Longden, Gilbert


Biffen, John
Fry, Peter
Loveridge, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Blaker, Peter
Gardner, Edward
MacArthur, Ian


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gibson-watt, David
McCrindle, R. A.


Body Richard
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McLaren Martin


Boscawen, Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bossom, Sir Clive
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Bowden, Andrew
Godber, Rt. Hn. J.B.
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Braine, Bernard
Gorst, John
Maddan, Martin


Bray, Ronald
Gower, Raymond
Madel, David



Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)



Brewis, John
Gray, Hamish
Mather, Carol


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Green, Alan
Maude, Angus


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bryan, Paul
Gummer, Selwyn
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Buck, Antony
Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, Lt-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Moate, Roger


Carlisle, Mark
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Money, Ernle


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Channon, Paul
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Montgomery, Fergus


Chapman, Sydney
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
More, Jasper


Chichester-Clark, R.
Haselhurst, Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Churchill, W. S.
Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Havers, Michael
Mudd, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hawkins, Paul
Murton, Oscar


Clegg, Walter
Hay, John
Neave, Airey


Cockeram, Eric
Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom


Coombs, Derek
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Nott, John


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


Cormack, Patrick
Higgins, Terence L.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Costa in, A. P.
Hiley, Joseph
Osborn, John


Critchley, Julian
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Crouch, David
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Curran, Charles
Holt, Miss Mary
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hordern, Peter
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hornby, Richard
Peel, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Percival, Ian


Dean, Paul
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pink, R. Bonner


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pounder, Rafton


Dixon, Piers
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hunt, John
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Drayson, G. B.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
James, David
Redmond, Robert




Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Vickers, Dame Joan


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Waddington, David


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Wilder, David (Clitheroe)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stokes, John
Walker, Rt Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Ridsdale, Julian
Sutcliffe, John
Wall, Patrick


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tapsell, Peter
Walters, Dennis


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Ward, Dame Irene


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rost, Peter
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Scott, Nicholas
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Scott-Hopkins, James
Temple, John M.
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn, Mrs. Margaret
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Simeons, Charles
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Sinclair, Sir George
Tilney, John
Worsley, Marcus


Skeet, T. H. H.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Trew, Peter



Soref, Harold
Tugendhat, Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Speed, Keith
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Spence, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Sproat, Iain






NOES


Albu, Austen
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lambie, David


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ellis, Tom
Latham, Arthur


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
English, Michael
Lawson, George


Ashton, Joe
Evans, Fred
Leadbitter, Ted


Atkinson, Norman
Faulds, Andrew
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Barnes, Michael
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lipton, Marcus


Barnett, Joel
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Loughlin, Charles


Beaney, Alan
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Foley, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Foot, Michael
McBride, Neil


Bidwell, Sydney
Ford, Ben
McCartney, Hugh


Bishop, E. S.
Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Booth, Albert
Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Maclennan, Robert


Bradley, Tom
Gilbert, Dr. John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Golding, John
McNamara, J. Kevin


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth


Buchan, Norman
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marquand, David


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marsden, F.


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Cant, R. B.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Meacher, Michael


Carmichale, Neil
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hardy, Peter
Mendelson, John


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cohen, Stanley
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Coleman, Donald
Hattersley, Roy
Molloy, William


conlan, Bernard
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Crawshaw, Richard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Cronin, John
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moyle, Roland


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Huckfied, Leslie
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Murray, Ronald King


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Ogden, Eric


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Halloran, Michael


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hunter, Adam
O'Malley, Brian


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Janner, Greville
Oram, Bert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)
Oswald, Thomas


Davis, Terry (Bromegrove)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Palmer, Arthur


Delargy, H. J.
John, Brynmor
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pendry, Tom


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Driberg, Tom
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Perry, Ernest G.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dunnett, Jack
Judd, Frank
Prescott, John


Eadie, Alex
Kaufman, Gerard
Probert, Arthur


Edelman, Maurice
Kelley, Richard
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)







Rhodes, Geoffrey
Spriggs, Leslie
Wainwright, Edwin


Richard, Ivor
Stallard, A. W.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wallace, George


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Watkins, David


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Weitzman, David


Roper, John
Strang, Gavin
Whitehead, Phillip


Rose, Paul B.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Sandelson, Neville
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Tinn, James
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Tomney, Frank
Woof, Robert


Silverman, Julius
Torney, Tom



Skinner, Dennis
Tuck, Raphael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Small, William
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. William Hamling.


Spearing, Nigel

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): As the House is willing to waive

Clause 87

DUTY TO INFORM REGISTRAR OF CHANGES IN RULES, OFFICERS AND OTHER MATTERS

Lords Amendment: No. 170, in page 68, line 19, leave out "together with the prescribed fee".

Motion made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[The Solicitor-General.]

its privilege, I will see than an entry is made to that effect in the Journal.

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [28th July], put forthwith the Question thereon:—

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 215.

Division No. 473.]
AYES
[1.15 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Aldason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cockeram, Eric
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Coombs, Derek
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Atkins, Humphrey
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Goodhart, Philip


Awdry, Daniel
Cormack, Patrick
Goodhew, Victor


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Costain, A. P.
Gorst, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Critchley, Julian
Gower, Raymond


Balniel, Lord
Crouch, David
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Curran, Charles
Gray, Hamish


Batsford, Brian
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Green, Alan


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grieve, Percy


Bell, Ronald
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Dean, Paul
Grylls, Michael


Benyon, W. R.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gummer, Selwyn


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dixon, Piers
Gurden, Harold


Biffen, John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Biggs-Davison, John
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Blaker, Peter
Drayson, G. B.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Body, Richard
Eden, Sir John
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bowden, Andrew
Emery, Peter
Hastings, Stephen


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Eyre, Reginald
Havers, Michael


Braine, Bernard
Farr, John
Hay, John


Bray, Ronald
Fell, Anthony
Hayhoe, Barney


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fidler, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Higgins, Terence L.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hiley, Joseph


Bryan, Paul
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Buck, Antony
Fortescue, Tim
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Foster, Sir John
Holt, Miss Mary


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fowler, Norman
Hordern, Peter


Carlisle, Mark
Fox, Marcus
Hornby, Richard


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Channon, Paul
Fry, Peter
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Chapman, Sydney
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Howell, David (Guildford)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gardner, Edward
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Churchill, W. S.
Gibson-Watt, David
Hunt, John




Hutchison, Michael Clark




Iremonger, T. A.
Mudd, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


James, David
Murton, Oscar
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Jessel, Toby
Neave, Airey
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Normanton, Tom
Stokes, John


Jopling, Michael
Nott, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Onslow, Cranley
Sutcliffe, John


Kilfedder, James
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Tapsell, Peter


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Osborn, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kinsey, J. R.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Kirk, Peter
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kitson, Timothy
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Knox, David
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Tebbit, Norman


Lambton, Antony
Peel, John
Temple, John M.


Lane, David
Percival, Ian
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pink, R. Bonner
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Pounder, Rafton
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Tilney, John


Longden, Gilbert
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Loveridge, John
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Trew, Peter


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Tugendhat, Christopher


MacArthur, Ian
Redmond, Robert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


McCrindle, R. A.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


McLaren, Martin
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Waddington, David


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Ridsdale, Julian
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Maddan, Martin
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wall, Patrick


Madel, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Walters, Dennis


Mather, Carol
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Ward, Dame Irene


Maude, Angus
Rost, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Mawby, Ray
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Scott, Nicholas
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Wiggin, Jerry


Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Wilkinson, John


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Simeons, Charles
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Money, Ernle
Sinclair, Sir George
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Skeet, T. H. H.
Woodnutt, Mark


Montgomery, Fergus
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Worsley, Marcus




Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


More, Jasper
Soref, Harold




Speed, Keith
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Spence, John
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sproat, Iain
Mr. Paul Hawkins.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Cronin, John
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dalyell, Tam
Freeson, Reginald


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Galpern, Sir Myer


Ashton, Joe
Davidson, Arthur
Gilbert, Dr. John


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Golding, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Barnes, Michael
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Barnett, Joel
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Beaney, Alan
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Delargy, H. J.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Bidwell, Sydney
Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Hardy, Peter


Bishop, E. S.
Doig, Peter
Harper, Joseph


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Booth, Albert
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Driberg, Tom
Hattersley, Roy


Bradley, Tom
Duffy, A. E. P.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, w.)
Dunnett, Jack
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Eadie, Alex
Horam, John


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Edelman, Maurice
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Huckfield, Leslie


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Ellis, Tom
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Cant, R. B.
English, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Fred
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Faulds, Andrew
Hunter, Adam


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Janner, Greville


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Cohen, Stanley
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Conlan, Bernard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Foley, Maurice
John, Brynmor


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Foot, Michael
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Ford, Ben
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)



Forrester, John
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)







Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Molloy, William
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silverman, Julius


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Skinner, Dennis


Judd, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Small, William


Kaufman, Gerald
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Kelley, Richard
Moyle, Roland
Spearing, Nigel


Kinnock, Neil
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spriggs, Leslie


Lambie, David
Murray, Ronald King
Stallard, A. W.


Latham, Arthur
Ogden, Eric
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Lawson, George
O'Halloran, Michael
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Leadbitter, Ted
O'Malley, Brian
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Leonard, Dick
Oram, Bert
Strang, Gavin


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Orme, Stanley
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Oswald, Thomas
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lipton, Marcus
Palmer, Arthur
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Loughlin, Charles
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Tinn, James


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Tomney, Frank


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Torney, Tom


McBride, Neil
Pendry, Tom
Tuck, Raphael


McCartney, Hugh
Pentland, Norman
Urwin, T. W.


McGuire, Michael
Perry, Ernest G.
Varley, Eric G.


Mackenzie, Gregor
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wainwright, Edwin


Mackie, John
Prescott, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Maclennan, Robert
Probert, Arthur
Wallace, George


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Watkins, David


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Weitzman, David


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Whitehead, Phillip


Marks, Kenneth
Richard, Ivor
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Marquand, David
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Marsden, F.
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roper, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Meacher, Michael

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)



Rose, Paul B.
Woof, Robert


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Sandelson, Neville



Mendelson, John
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Millan, Bruce
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Mr. William Hamling.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the House is willing to waive its privilege, I will see that an entry is made to that effect in the Journal of the House.

Lords Amendment: No. 171, in page 68, line 20, at end insert "and, in the case of a copy of a change in the rules, shall be sent to him together with a fee of £10 or such other sum as may be prescribed".

Motion made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [28th July], put forthwith the Question thereon:—

The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 215.

Division No. 474.]
AYES
[1.26 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bryan, Paul
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Buck, Antony
Drayson, G. B.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bullus, Sir Eric
du Carat, Rt. Hn. Edward


Atkins, Humphrey
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Eden, Sir John


Awdry, Daniel
Carlisle, Mark
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Channon, Paul
Emery, Peter


Batsford, Brian
Chapman, Sydney
Farr, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fell, Anthony


Bell, Ronald
Churchill, W. S.
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fidler, Michael


Bonyon, W.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Clegg, Walter
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Biffen, John
Cockeram, Eric
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biggs-Davison, John
Coombs, Derek
Fortescue, Tim


Blaker, Peter
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Foster, Sir John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Cormack, Patrick
Fowler, Norman


Body, Richard
Costa in, A. P.
Fox, Marcus


Boscawen, Robert
Critchley, Julian
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Crouch, David
Fry, Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Curran, Charles
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gardner, Edward


Braine, Bernard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gibson-Watt, David


Bray, Ronald
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dean, Paul
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dixon, Piers
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.




Goodhart, Philip
Loveridge, John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Goodhew, Victor
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Gorst, John
MacArthur, Ian
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Gower, Raymond
McCrindle, R. A.
Simeons, Charles


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McLaren, Martin
Sinclair, Sir George


Gray, Hamish
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Skeet, T. H. H.


Green, Alan
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Soref, Harold


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Speed, Keith


Grylls, Michael
Maddan, Martin
Spence, John


Gummer, Selwyn
Madel, David
Sproat, Iain


Gurden, Harold
Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mawby, Ray
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hall-Davis, A. G, F.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stokes, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Sutcliffe, John


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tapsell, Peter


Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hastings, Stephen
Money, Ernle
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Havers, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hay, John
More, Jasper
Tebbit, Norman


Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Temple, John M.


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hicks, Robert
Mudd, David
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Higgins, Terence L.
Murton, Oscar
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hiley, Joseph
Neave, Airey
Tilney, John


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Norman ton, Tom
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Nott, John
Trew, Peter


Holt, Miss Mary
Onslow, Cranley
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hordern, Peter
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hornby, Richard
Osborn, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Waddington, David


Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hunt, John
Peel, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian
Wall, Patrick


Iremonger, T. L.
Pink, R. Bonner
Walters, Dennis


James, David
Pounder, Rafton
Ward, Dame Irene


Jessel, Toby
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Weatherill, Bernard


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Jopling, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Kilfedder, James
Redmond, Robert
Wiggin, Jerry


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Wilkinson, John


Kinsey, J. R.
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kirk, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Kitson, Timothy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Woodnutt, Mark


Knox, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas



Lambton, Antony
Ridsdale, Julian
Worsley, Marcus


Lane, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)



Le Marchant, Spencer
Rost, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Longden, Gilbert
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Hugh Rossi.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Cant, R. B.
Doig, Peter


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Carmichael, Neil
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Driberg, Tom


Atkinson, Norman
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cohen, Stanley
Dunnett, Jack


Barnes, Michael
Coleman, Donald
Eadie, Alex


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Conlan, Bernard
Edelman, Maurice


Barnett, Joel
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Beaney, Alan
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Crawshaw, Richard
Ellis, Tom


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cronin, John
English, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Dalyell, Tam
Evans, Fred


Bishop, E. S.
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Faulds, Andrew


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davidson, Arthur
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Booth, Albert
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bradley, Tom
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)


Brown, Bob (N' c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Foley, Maurice


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Foot, Michael


Buchan, Norman
Delargy, H. J.
Ford, Ben


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Forrester, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Fraser, John (Norwood)







Freeson, Reginald
Lipton, Marcus
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Galpern, Sir Meyer
Loughlin, Charles
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Gilbert, Dr. John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Richard, Ivor


Golding, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Coronwy (Caernarvon)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McBride, Neil
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
McCartney, Hugh
Roper, John


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McGuire, Michael
Rose, Paul B.


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Sandelson, Neville


Hamilton', James (Bothwell)
Mackie, John
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Maclennan, Robert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Hardy, Peter
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Harper, Joseph
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Silverman, Julius


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marks, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marquand, David
Small, William


Hattersley, Roy
Marsden, F.
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Spearing, Nigel


Heffer, Eric S.
Meacher, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Horam, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mendelson, John
Stewart, fit. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Millan, Bruce
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Huckfield, Leslie
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Stone-house, Rt. Hn. John


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Molloy, William
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Janner, Greville
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Jeger,Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)
Moyle, Roland
Tomney, Frank


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Torney, Tom


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Murray, Ronald King
Tuck, Raphael


John, Brynmor
Ogden, Eric
Urwin, T. W.


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Varley, Eric G.


Johnson, Waller (Derby, S.)
O'Malley, Brian
Wainwright, Edwin


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Oram, Bert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Orme, Stanley
Wallace, George


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Oswald, Thomas
Watkins, David


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Weitzman, David


Judd, Frank
Palmer, Arthur
Whitehead, Phillip


Kaufman, Gerald
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Kelley, Richard
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Kinnock, Neil
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lambie, David
Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Latham, Arthur
Pentland, Norman
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lawson, George
Perry, Ernest G.
Woof, Robert


Leadbitter, Ted
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.



Leonard, Dick
Prescott, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Probert, Arthur
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Mr. William Hamling.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the House is willing to waive its privilege, I will see

Clause 91

EXAMINATION AND APPROVAL OF CHANGES IN RULES

Lords Amendment: No. 177, in page 70, line 23, at end insert new Clause D—

INSPECTION OF REGISTERS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS

"D. The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to inspection of the registers and other documents kept by the registrar under this Part of this Act, and with respect to the fees to be charged for

that an entry to that effect is made in the Journal of the House.

inspection of any such register or other document."

Motion made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [28th July], put forthwith the Question thereon:—

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 215.

Division No. 475.]
AYES
[1.37 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Awdry, Daniel
Batsford, Brian


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bell, Ronald


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Balniel, Lord
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)


Atkins, Humphrey
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Benyon, W.




Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grylls, Michael
Osborn, John


Biffen, John
Gummer, Selwyn
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gurden, Harold
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Blaker, Peter
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Body, Richard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Peel, John


Boscawen, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Percival, Ian


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Pink, R. Bonner


Bowden, Andrew
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pounder, Rafton


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Haselhurst, Alan
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Braine, Bernard
Hastings, Stephen
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Bray, Ronald
Havers, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Briton, Sir Tatton
Hawkins, Paul
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hay, John
Redmond, Robert


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hayhoe, Barney
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Bryan, Paul
Hicks, Robert
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Buck, Antony
Higgins, Terence L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hiley, Joseph
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Carlisle, Mark
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Holt, Miss Mary
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Channon, Paul
Hordern, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Chapman, Sydney
Hornby, Richard
Rost, Peter


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Russell, Sir Ronald


Churchill, W. S.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Scott, Nicholas


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clarke, Kennet (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Clegg, Walter
Hunt, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Cockeram, Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Simeons, Charles


Coombs, Derek
Iremonger, T. L.
Sinclair, Sir George


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
James, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Costain, A. P.
Johnson, Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Soref, Harold


Critchley, Julian
Jopling, Michael
Spence, John


Crouch, David
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Sproat, Iain


Curran, Charles
Kilfedder, James
Stanbrook, Ivor


Davits, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kinsey, J. R.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Kirk, Peter
Stokes, John


Dean, Paul
Kitson, Timothy
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Desdes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Knox, David
Sutcliffe, John


Dixon, Piers
Lambton, Antony
Tapsell, Peter


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lane, David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Drayson, G. B.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Eden, Sir John
Longden, Gilbert
Tebbit, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Loveridge, John
Temple, John M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Emery, Peter
MacArthur, Ian
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Eyre, Reginald
McCrindle, R. A.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Farr, John
McLaren, Martin
Tilney, John


Fell, Anthony
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Trew, Peter


Fidler, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Tugendhat, Christopher


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Maddan, Martin
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fortescue, Tim
Mather, Carol
Waddington, David


Foster, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fowler, Norman
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Fox, Marcus
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wall, Patrick


Fry, Peter
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Walters, Dennis


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ward, Dame Irene


Gardner, Edward
Moate, Roger
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gibson-Watt, David
Money, Ernle
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wiggin, Jerry


Glyn, Dr. Alan
More, Jasper
Wilkinson, John


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhart, Philip
Morris, Charles (Devizes)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Goodhew, Victor
Mudd, David
Woodnutt, Mark


Gorst, John
Murton, Oscar
Worsley, Marcus


Gower, Raymond

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Neave, Airey



Gray, Hamish
Normanton, Tom



Green, Alan
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grieve, Percy
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Bernard Whetherill and


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Mr. Keith Speed.







NOES


Albu, Austen
Golding, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Moyle, Roland


Ashton, Joe
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Atkinson, Norman
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Murray, Ronald King


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ogden, Eric


Barnes, Michael
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
O'Halloran, Michael


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
O'Malley, Brian


Barnett, Joel
Hardy, Peter
Oram, Bert


Beaney, Alan
Harper, Joseph
Orme, Stanley


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oswald, Thomas


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hattersley, Roy
Palmer, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Booth, Albert
Horam, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pendry, Tom


Bradley, Tom
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Perry, Ernest G.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Prescott, John


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Probert, Arthur


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hunter, Adam
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Gampbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Janner, Greville
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Canmichael, Neil
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
John, Brynmor
Roper, John


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rose, Paul B.


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Sandelson, Neville


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Cronin, John
Judd, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Kelley, Richard
Small, William


Davidson, Arthur
Kinnock, Neil
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lambie, David
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lawson, George
Stallard, A. W.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Leonard, Dick
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


de Frietas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Delargy, H. J.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Strang, Gavin


Dell, Rt Hn. Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Lipton, Marcus
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Doig, Peter
Loughlin, Charles
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Tinn, James


Driberg, Tom
McBride, Neil
Tomney, Frank


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Hugh
Torney, Tom


Dunnett, Jack
McGuire, Michael
Tuck, Raphael


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Gregor
Urwin, T. W.


Edelman, Maurice
Mackie, John
Varley, Eric G.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin


Ellis, Tom
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


English, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wallace, George


Evans, Fred
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
watkins, David


Faulds, Andrew
Marks, Kenneth
Weitzman, David


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Marquand, David
Whitehead, Phillip


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Marsden, F.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Meacher, Michael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Foley, Maurice
Mendelson, John



Foot, Michael
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ford, Ben
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Woof, Robert


Forrester, John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)



Fraser, John (Norwood)
Molloy, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Freeson, Reginald
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. William Hamling.


Gilbert, Dr. John

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the Question involves privilege, I will cause an

entry to that effect to be made in the Journal of the House.

HOUSING BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords Amendments agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): As these Amendments involve privilege, I will cause an entry to be made in the Journals of the House.

ABERAVON

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

1.46 a.m.

Mr. John Morris: I am grateful for this opportunity at this late hour to raise some of the problems of the environment in the Aberavon constituency. The word "environment" is very much an "in" word these days. It means what to ordinary people whom I have the privilege of representing are problems of bricks and mortar, the rivers, the sea, tarmacadam and noise. It is the quality of the vicinity in which one lives, works and spends one's leisure.
Every effort is made these days to improve the quality of life. We see in the County of Glamorgan, in my constituency, work being done in land reclamation, and it is a tragedy perhaps that while all this is going on the local authority has to spend £2,500 a year merely to refit light fittings which have been removed by acts of vandalism. That is just one of the problems.
I want to concern myself this evening with three points: first with a caravan development at Porthcawl, and indeed in Wales generally. At Porthcawl there are about 5,000 caravans already, and there is a proposal to increase the number by another 1,000 at Trecio Bay. The history of this matter is that a development plan was approved as far back as 1958 to schedule this part of Porthcawl as a holiday area, and in 1961 planning consent was given. Nothing was done about this matter until latterly, and the developers' plans have lain fallow for many a year, the developers now want to activate them. That has resulted in the whole town being up in arms, and over 6,000 people, more than 60 per

cent. of the population, have petitioned the Welsh Office and have expressed their concern about this new development.
The Minister of State has written and told me that this is a matter for the local authority. If it decides to revoke the planning permission already given, that is its affair. But the fact of the matter is that Porthcawl is an area with limited resources, a small town indeed with an above-average number of pensioners and people on fixed incomes, and it is totally out of the question for a small town of that size to consider the question of revocation.
No one knows exactly what the figures would be, but a range from £100,000 to £1 million has been mentioned. It is no good the Government wringing their hands and everyone saying that this should not happen and that there are enough caravans at Porthcawl. We are prisoners of the past, doomed to impotence.
The Government cannot wash their hands of this issue. The local authorities are deeply conscious of the situation. If our concern for our heritage and our coast line is to mean anything, the Government, the local authorities and the developers must act. Trust House-Forte has a major responsibility whether or not it carries on with the permission already given. I invite Lord Crowther to read this debate. He has the interests of his shareholders but also the good name of his company to consider. The answer may be for the developers, the local authorities and the Government to get together to work out a solution.
To underline the gravity of the situation, I quote a report by Dr. Thomas Sharp, who was commissioned by the Glamorgan County Council in 1964 to look into the problem of planning at Porthcawl. He said:
I regret that I do not feel able to undertake this work. In my opinion, the future of the town has been so prejudiced by developments within the last decade that no worthwhile plan for the future can be made until the situation resulting from those developments has been corrected. Such correction will require policy decisions on a heroic scale and financial undertakings of an enormous and burdensome kind.
The injurious development to which he referred was caravan development. He


ended this part of his report by saying that, where there was
a great expanse of natural burrows and sand hills, there has been developed the most deplorable and civically cancerous growth that I have yet encountered in my long experience of urban diagnosis.
I am not against caravans. Indeed, I spent a most pleasurable holiday last year touring in one. In many parts of Wales there is a need for adequate facilities for the touring caravan. But I am concerned that someone should consider the picture comprehensively to see whether saturation point has not been reached in Porthcawl and many other parts of Wales.
I asked the Minister of State yesterday to give me the figures for each county in Wales, detailing how many permissions had been given for how many caravans and how many had been taken up. I was taken aback to be told that the information was not readily available. When I asked another question about the policy in this matter, he said, first, rightly, that this is a matter for the local authorities and that the Welsh Office calls in such applications for its own decision in exceptional cases; for example, where the issues raised are of national importance.
But if the Welsh Office does not have the figures for each county, and if it does not have the figures showing what has been and what has not been taken up, how can it know whether these are significant matters of national importance or of great importance in the locality?
I was flabbergasted by the inadequacy of the Welsh Office and its inability to give very important figures which should have been readily available. The Minister's advisers need a thorough shaking up to ensure that they provide him with the relevant information, so that when decisions of this kind are taken a full picture is put before him.
It is time that this nettle was grasped and that we had a thorough-going inquiry into caravan development throughout Wales, to establish first what the needs are—both for the stationary caravans and the touring caravans—and secondly their relevance having regard to the permanent population and how much saturation can be allowed.
We need to be able to look at the whole picture, and I urge the Minister to set

up a national inquiry into the matter to ensure that all the facts are established; and in considering the Porthcawl problem he should call all the parties together in an effort to find a way out of the difficulty. The Government cannot wash their hands of this affair.
Because of the lack of time, I will refer only briefly to the development of the M4. This road is generally welcomed in South Wales, where we need a great artery to connect our industrial areas, and the whole of Wales, with the rest of the country. However, the proposed line of the motorway is causing concern, particularly to the residents of the villages of Cornelly and Groes, which are in my constituency.
If the present line of the motorway is maintained, it is likely that Cornelly will be split into three parts. At present it is a corporate unit, with the new part of the village grafted on to the old. If the road is developed according to present plans, the village will be completely split. Groes is an old village containing, among other things, a round chapel that is listed as being of particular historical importance. This village will be torn apart if the proposed line of the M4 is maintained.
I appreciate the difficulties of the Minister in attempting to comment on this matter in detail. I have written to the Secretary of State and I now ask the hon. Gentleman to make it clear that there will be a full public inquiry so that those concerned may ventilate their views. I hope that in the meantime no decision will be taken which might in any way prejudice the future of these two villages.
Another problem involving the environment is atmospheric pollution at Port Talbot. Some work has been done, and the British Steel Corporation has undertaken considerable expenditure to overcome this problem. The local authority has been a formidable watchdog to ensure that pollution is kept to the minimum, but there are emissions and break-downs, and when these occur life becomes thoroughly miserable for those living in the part of Port Talbot of which I am speaking, and particularly for housewives.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for a Written Answer I received yesterday to a Question I had asked about


atmospheric pollution at Port Talbot. I was told:
For many processes which give rise to atmospheric pollution, authorised levels of emission are not laid down but the best practicable means are required to render emissions harmless and inoffensive. Where authorised levels of emission have been laid down, the standards are being met in the Port Talbot area".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1971, Vol. 822, c. 282.]
In that Question I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was satisfied with the present position, but he did not answer that. I would be grateful for some comments on the whole question of atmospheric pollution at Port Talbot.
In the short time at my disposal I have dealt with some of the problems that concern my constituents. These are problems about the environment in which they live, work and enjoy their leisure. My constituents want to improve the quality of life in the area, and there is a deep awareness throughout the country that we must do our utmost to preserve and improve the environment.
At the end of the day, this is a question of bricks and mortar, of roads and of developments here and there. These are the hard facts of life, and our handling of them can either improve or spoil the quality of life in my area.

1.59 a.m.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): The right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) raised three matters concerning his constituency, which is an area embracing heavy industry and great beauty. It is also on the way to somewhere and is therefore subject to road development. I will deal with each of these points and give the best possible answers I can to the questions he asked.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the proposal for an extension of the caravan development on the east side of Porthcawl, and to caravan development generally in Wales. I am aware of the anxiety of many local residents about the Porthcawl proposal. The right hon. Gentleman and I have exchanged letters on the matter, and I have also received representations from the Porthcawl Civic Trust Society. In the course of this correspondence I have explained the present statutory position, but it is sufficiently important and relevant to what

the right hon. Gentleman said to go over this again.
The Porthcawl Urban District Council, acting for the Glamorgan County Council as local planning authority, gave outline planning permission for the development of this 40-acre site as a holiday caravan camp as far back as March 1961. This permission required among other things the submission to the council of detailed plans of the layout of all buildings and structures to be erected on the site for approval before any work commenced. I am informed that the Porthcawl Urban District Council subsequently issued a site licence for 1,039 caravans. Detailed plans have not yet, I understand, been submitted.
It is for the county council to decide whether it now wishes to revoke the permission given in 1961. If it does, the revocation Order would have to be submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend for confirmation, and it would also fall to him to decide any appeal which might be made by the developers in the event of the council's failing or refusing to approve detailed plans. For these reasons, as the right hon. Gentleman very well knows, it would be most improper were I to comment on the merits of the Porthcawl proposals. I am, however, glad to know that representatives of the developers and the local authority are discussing proposals in the light of the strong local reactions to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.
On the more general proposition of holiday camp development, it might help if I were to say a few words about the Government's rôle and attitude.
First, it is important to bear in mind that, subject to a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, the decision on any planning application is the responsibility of the local planning authority. My right hon. and learned Friend calls in planning applications for his own decision only in exceptional cases. However, the previous Government gave general guidance on caravan sites in Development Control Policy Note No. 8, issued in 1969, which is accepted by the present Government as a fair statement of what is desirable.
This note states that planning policy is concerned to see that the touring caravanner has reasonable freedom to wander and explore and the static caravanner a reasonable choice of site to visit, but


without spoiling the countryside, the coast or amenities which other people enjoy. The note points out the need to avoid conspicuous sites, especially on the coast, and to the importance of avoiding both the wider scattering of caravan development and the possible "saturating" of places which already have large numbers of caravans.
The Government's determination to safeguard the beauty of the British countryside and seashore for the future, which are very relevant to the subject matter of this debate, was made quite explicit in the Queen's Speech a little over a year ago.
The question of "saturation" is, of course, difficult to determine. As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the mere number of caravans or of planning permissions in the whole of Wales, or even in a particular county, can at best only give us part of the story. So much depends on circumstances in specific locations.
The right hon. Gentleman has criticised the Welsh Office for not having precise information available about the number of caravans in each county in Wales for which there is in existence planning permission, and the number for which permission has been granted but not so far taken up. Although the precise information which he sought is not readily available, there is a great deal of other relevant information available. We know, for example, that there are some 60,000 caravans or caravan pitches in Wales, and we have fairly reliable information on a county basis. But the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a large number of the sites were in existence before the post-war planning legislation came into force and, therefore, pre-date the planning permission arrangements as we now know them. Hence the difficulty in giving him a precise answer.
As to the number of permitted caravan sites not already taken up or utilised, the fact is that the number varies substantially, with the seasons—indeed, it changes from day to day and, at the height of the season, from hour to hour. To obtain this part of the information sought by the right hon. Gentleman would, therefore, require a simultaneous physical examination of every caravan site in Wales, which is clearly impossible.

I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that my advisers need a thorough shaking up, because what he is asking for is virtually impossible to give, but I hope that what I have said to him about the 760,000 caravans or caravan pitches in Wales gives some idea of the size of the problem.

Mr. John Morris: I am grateful for that explanation. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman is responsible, the answer given yesterday was that the information was not available, and that was said without qualification. That reflects not only on those advising the hon. Member, but on his own responsibility.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: If the right hon. Gentleman studies that Question and Answer and reads my speech in HANSARD, he will find that he is not correct in that.
I appreciate his concern about the need for information to be available and I have arranged for this question to be discussed with the planning authorities to see what further information can be made available without diverting staff resources from other more urgent tasks. There is no evidence that planning authorities in Wales are relaxing their planning control on caravan development. Indeed, what evidence there is is to the contrary.
For instance, in the first 12 months of the present Administration some 47 per cent. of planning applications for caravan development were granted by the planning authorities; this compares with 56 per cent. granted in 1969. The number of caravans or pitches covered by the permissions granted in 1970–71 was 3,762. We do not have the comparable figure for 1969, but it was probably considerably greater. I should like to assure the House that we are conscious of the widespread feeling that there is a caravan problem in some parts of Wales and we recognise that this calls for discussion between the Welsh Office and the local planning authorities.
The second subject which the right hon. Gentleman raised was that of the motorway. He asked for a public inquiry into the proposed line of the M4 motorway within his constituency. I can give him an immediate assurance on this. Shortly after draft Orders under the Highways Act were published containing my right


hon. and learned Friend's proposals for the line of this length of motorway, the Welsh Office arranged public meetings in both Groes and North Cornelly so that officials could explain the choice of routes to those affected and give the public further information to enable people if they wished to object to the proposals. At both meetings assurances were given that the objections would be the subject of a public inquiry.
I cannot yet say when this inquiry will be held. The period for the receipt of objections to the proposals ended today. The Welsh Office will now be considering all the objections and an announcement will be made as soon as possible. I understand the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents. We live with progress, but progress does not al-always seem to be on our side and when a motorway comes to one's village, it is absolutely right that these matters should be ventilated and questions asked about them in the House.
The right hon. Gentleman's third theme was that of air pollution in his constituency arising from the operation of the steelworks. May I briefly set out the statutory position on this subject and then the facts in relation to the right hon. Gentleman's constituency as I know them. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that most of the processes at the Port Talbot Steelworks are registered under the Alkali Acts and are therefore under the direct control of the Alkali Inspectorate which reports to the Secretary of State for Wales. Companies with processes registered under the Alkali Acts are generally required to employ the best practicable means to control the emissions of noxious or offensive gases so as to render them harmless and inoffensive. There are maximum levels of emission laid down for some of the processes in steel making. Most of the processes in the steelworks are in fact registered under the Alkali Acts and therefore come under the control of the district alkali inspector for the area. So much for the statutory position.
I now turn to the situation in Port Talbot. I am aware that about the middle of last year the operation of the steelworks coke ovens gave rise to complaints about a dust nuisance and noise nuisance arising from the operation of No. 4 blast furnace.
I understand that the British Steel Corporation management at the plant made considerable efforts in the face of difficulties to improve the situation at the coke ovens and generally throughout the steel works. It is working in conjunction with the local authority and the District Alkali Inspector and I have been assured that these efforts by the Corporation will be continued.
Turning to smoke and sulphur dioxide pollution I understand that the figures provided by the Port Talbot Borough Council to the Warren Spring Laboratory of the Department of Trade and Industry show that smoke pollution in the area in many cases is below the levels in other parts of South Wales, while sulphur dioxide pollution is only slightly higher. This may seem surprising but it has to be borne in mind that domestic premises account for a considerable proportion of smoke and sulphur dioxide pollution.
As for the total emission from registered processes in the steel works I am advised by the District Alkali Inspector that there has been a steady decline in the level of emissions in recent years and where there are authorised levels of emission these are being complied with. I assure the hon. Gentleman that no one who is in any way concerned is being complacent about the situation. The District Alkali Inspector, the local authority and the British Steel Corporation will continue to pursue vigorously the possibility of further improvements.
Finally, I know the right hon. Membe is interested in atmosphere pollution in the wider context. He showed great interest, as the Government did, in a study published by Mr. G. Goodman and Mr. T. Roberts of University College, Swansea, on mosses as indicators of atmospheric pollution by heavy metals in the Swansea area. Following publication of this report a group of experts met at the Welsh Office to discuss its implications.
It was decided to set up a working party of experts to prepare proposals for further research. The first meeting was held recently and detailed consideration is now being given to the sort of research which might be undertaken, including further monitoring of the atmosphere, the possible medical effects of heavy metal pollution of the atmosphere and the possible effects on agriculture.
The right hon. Gentleman will recall one of the main conclusions of the first report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution was that there was insufficient evidence about the effects of atmospheric pollution. I am sure he will agree that our actions show that we are treating this subject with proper concern. He has raised three

important matters concerning his constituency. They affect an important part of South Wales and I hope my answers have gone some way to satisfy him on these matters.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Two o'clock.